Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38915813›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2024

Follow the money: a global analysis of funding dynamics for global health security.

Hailey Robertson, Ellie Graeden, Justin Kerr, Michael Van Maele, Rebecca Katz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hailey RobertsonCenter for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2988-307X
Ellie GraedenCenter for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1265-9756
Justin KerrCenter for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, United States.
Michael Van MaeleTalus Analytics LLC, Boulder, CO 80301, United States.
Rebecca KatzCenter for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global financing for health security was dramatically impacted by COVID-19. Here, we provide an empirical analysis of how that funding changed. Using data from Global Health Security (GHS) Tracking (tracking.ghscosting.org), we analyzed disbursements of direct financial assistance for GHS from 2016 to 2022 to compare pre-pandemic funding (2016-2019) to post-pandemic funding (2020-2022) for preparedness and response during each of the seven World Health Organization-declared public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs) from 2009 to 2022. Over $165B was disbursed for capacity-building and preparedness activities between January 2016 and December 2022, and over $76B was provided for PHEIC response. Preparedness funding remained evenly distributed since 2016 across regions, with the African region receiving about 70% of total preparedness funding. Indeed, how capacity-building and preparedness funding is distributed has changed remarkably little since 2016, despite unprecedented changes to the funding environment-including markedly increased spending-in response to COVID-19. This suggests we now have a unique opportunity to restructure how funds are tracked for accountability and assessing return on investment moving forward.

Indexed as

global health securityhealth financingpandemic preparedness and response

Identifiers

PMID38915813
PMCPMC11196183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.