ArticleBMJ global health2018
Pushing the envelope through the Global Financing Facility: potential impact of mobilising additional support to scale-up life-saving interventions for women, children and adolescents in 50 high-burden countries.
Article in BMJ global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Who is at the table and who has the power? Case study analysis of decision-making processes for the Global Financing Facility in Tanzania.Global health action · 2025Article
- Unwrapping the Global Financing Facility: understanding implications for women's children's and adolescent's health through layered policy analysis.Global health action · 2025Review
- Any better? A follow-up content analysis of adolescent sexual and reproductive health inclusion in Global Financing Facility country planning documents.Global health action · 2024Article
- Global Financing Facility investments for vulnerable populations: content analysis regarding maternal and newborn health and stillbirths in 11 African countries, 2015 to 2019.Global health action · 2024Article
- Article
- Global newborn health research priorities identified in 2014: A review to evaluate the uptake.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Review
- Are rhetorical commitments to adolescents reflected in planning documents? An exploratory content analysis of adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Global Financing Facility country plans.Reproductive health · 2021Article
- How do decision-makers use evidence in community health policy and financing decisions? A qualitative study and conceptual framework in four African countries.Health policy and planning · 2020Article
- On the Path to UHC - Global Evidence Must Go Local to Be Useful Comment on "Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy".International journal of health policy and management · 2019Article
- Operationalising the Global Financing Facility (GFF) model: the devil is in the detail.BMJ global health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Global Financing Facility (GFF) was launched to accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through scaled and sustainable financing for Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Nutrition (RMNCAH-N) outcomes. Our objective was to estimate the potential impact of increased resources available to improve RMNCAH-N outcomes, from expanding and scaling up GFF support in 50 high-burden countries.
methodsThe potential impact of GFF was estimated for the period 2017-2030. First, two scenarios were constructed to reflect conservative and ambitious assumptions around resources that could be mobilised by the GFF model, based on GFF Trust Fund resources of US$2.6 billion. Next, GFF impact was estimated by scaling up coverage of prioritised RMNCAH-N interventions under these resource scenarios. Resource availability was projected using an Excel-based model and health impacts and costs were estimated using the Lives Saved Tool (V.5.69 b9).
resultsWe estimate that the GFF partnership could collectively mobilise US$50-75 billion of additional funds for expanding delivery of life-saving health and nutrition interventions to reach coverage of at least 70% for most interventions by 2030. This could avert 34.7 million deaths-including preventable deaths of mothers, newborns, children and stillbirths-compared with flatlined coverage, or 12.4 million deaths compared with continuation of historic trends. Under-five and neonatal mortality rates are estimated to decrease by 35% and 34%, respectively, and stillbirths by 33%.
conclusionThe GFF partnership through country- contextualised prioritisation and innovative financing could go a long way in increasing spending on RMNCAH-N and closing the existing resource gap. Although not all countries will reach the SDGs by relying on gains from the GFF platform alone, the GFF provides countries with an opportunity to significantly improve RMNCAH-N outcomes through achievable, well-directed changes in resource allocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.