ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Ambitions and realities: Are Global Fund investments designed to achieve resilient and sustainable systems for health? Findings from the Global Fund Prospective Country Evaluation.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustainability of infectious disease elimination: a scoping review on integrating treatment and surveillance within health systems.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Strengthening country ownership of national antimalarial policymaking: insights from Laos, Pakistan and the Solomon Islands.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Ideas matter: An analysis of the effects of framing on health system strengthening in Zimbabwe.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Strengthening resilient and sustainable systems for health (RSSH) is central to the Global Fund's strategy, however questions persist about the Global Fund's role in the health systems strengthening space, and the extent to which investments are designed to achieve strengthening objectives, or just fill in gaps in the system. This paper reports on findings from the Prospective Country Evaluations (PCE), a multi-country multi-year evaluation of Global Fund support. We adapted a framework from Chee et al. (2013) to assess whether Global Fund investments were designed to strengthen or support the health system. Per this framework, 'systems support' refers to improvements in health systems functioning primarily driven by increases in inputs, whereas 'systems strengthening' refers to activities that drive changes in how the health system operates (often related to policies, regulations, governance structures, behavior change, and resource optimization). In the 2017 and 2019 funding cycles, we found that despite calls from the Global Fund to invest more strategically to strengthen health systems, a high proportion of RSSH funding was directed toward activities that support the health system. Factors underlying this pattern include limitations imposed by the three-year grant cycle, a lack of clear guidance on how to design strengthening investments, a persistent need for funding to address input gaps, and minimal feedback during the funding request process related to RSSH design. For the Global Fund, and indeed other global health initiatives, to contribute to sustained strengthening of health systems, is likely to require enhanced guidance and technical assistance, as well as improved measurement of outputs and outcomes.
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.