ArticleThe Lancet. Global health2021
Global Fund contributions to health security in ten countries, 2014-20: mapping synergies between vertical disease programmes and capacities for preventing, detecting, and responding to public health emergencies.
Article in The Lancet. Global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The successful scaling-up of antiretroviral therapy globally has many lessons for advancing universal health coverage: progress at risk.Globalization and health · 2025Article
- USA's exit from the WHO and freeze on USAID funds globally: its perils and possible opportunities.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- Lessons learnt from COVID-19 to reduce mortality and morbidity in the Global South: addressing global vaccine equity for future pandemics.BMJ global health · 2024Review
- Leveraging the HIV response to strengthen pandemic preparedness.PLOS global public health · 2023Review
- Financing global health security: estimating the costs of pandemic preparedness in Global Fund eligible countries.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- The costs of improving health emergency preparedness: A systematic review and analysis of multi-country studies.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Scientometric Analysis of Public Health Emergencies: 1994-2020.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Pandemic Disruption on the Management of Tuberculosis Treatment in Indonesia.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Review
- Build on HIV investments for future pandemic preparedness.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Emergency preparedness for public health threats, surveillance, modelling & forecasting.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021Review
- Inclusive Finance, Environmental Regulation, and Public Health in China: Lessons for the COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a robust vertical global health programme. The extent to which vertical programmes financially support health security has not been investigated. We, therefore, endeavoured to quantify the extent to which the budgets of this vertical programme support health security. We believe this is a crucial area of work as the global community works to combine resources for COVID-19 response and future pandemic preparedness.
methodsWe examined budgets for work in Kenya, Uganda, Vietnam, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone from January, 2014 to December, 2020. These ten countries were selected because of the robustness of investments and the availability of data. Using the International Health Regulations Joint External Evaluation (JEE) tool as a framework, we mapped budget line items to health security capacities. Two researchers independently reviewed each budget and mapped items to the JEE. Budgets were then jointly reviewed until a consensus was reached regarding if an item supported health security directly, indirectly, or not at all. The budgets for the study countries were inputted into a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and line items that mapped to JEE indicators were scaled up to their respective JEE capacity. Descriptive analyses were then done to determine the total amount of money budgeted for activities that support health security, how much was budgeted for each JEE capacity, and how much of the support was direct or indirect.
findingsThe research team reviewed 37 budgets. Budgets totalled US$6 927 284 966, and $2 562 063 054 (37·0%) of this mapped to JEE capacities. $1 330 942 712 (19·2%) mapped directly to JEE capacities and $1 231 120 342 (17·8%) mapped indirectly to JEE capacities. Laboratory systems, antimicrobial resistance, and the deployment of medical countermeasures and personnel received the most overall budgetary support; laboratory systems, antimicrobial resistance, and workforce development received the greatest amount of direct budgetary support.
interpretationOver one-third of the Global Fund's work also supports health security and the organisation has budgeted more than $2 500 000 000 for activities that support health security in ten countries since 2014. Although these funds were not budgeted specifically for health security purposes, recognising how vertical programmes can synergistically support other global health efforts has important implications for policy related to health systems strengthening.
fundingResolve to Save Lives: An Initiative of Vital Strategies.
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.