Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40148959›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2025

The devil's in the detail: an appraisal of the use of innovative financing mechanisms for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

Blagovesta Tacheva, Garrett Wallace Brown, David Bell, Jean von Agris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Blagovesta TachevaSchool of Politics and International Studies (POLIS), University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. b.d.tacheva@leeds.ac.uk.
Garrett Wallace BrownSchool of Politics and International Studies (POLIS), University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
David BellIndependent Consultant, Lake Jackson, TX, USA.
Jean von AgrisSchool of Politics and International Studies (POLIS), University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is the first published study examining whether, and to what degree, innovative financing could effectively support the financing needs of the global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR) agenda.

backgroundWhat is already known? In the context of global health, innovative financing encompasses a range of financial instruments that supplement international development assistance and other traditional sources of financing, with the intention of mobilising additional resources and channelling them more effectively. Examples including Advance Market Commitments (AMCs), Advance Purchase Commitments (APCs), vaccine bonds and pandemic bonds, have been used in the past to address major disease outbreaks, such as the Ebola and Covid-19 crises. Following the Covid-19 outbreak, innovative financing has been proposed as a major vehicle to fund PPPR.

resultsWhat are the new findings? Despite recent pronouncements that innovative financing has 'huge untapped potential' for PPPR, there is little evidence within the literature to support such claims. This has been confirmed by our examination of four innovative financing mechanisms and their historical use in response to disease outbreaks. Our findings suggest that flaws and trade-offs in the design and application of these mechanisms have resulted in failure to deliver on their promise, raising concerns regarding their prospective use in financing PPPR. Although innovative financing could play a role, existing mechanisms in health have not generated the scale of funds proposed. In addition, the amounts generated have historically focused on specific interventions, which threaten to enhance fragmentation (disjointed financing of health) and alignment failures (not well integrated within overall national strategic plans) with and within PPPR.

conclusionsWhat do the new findings imply? Our findings reveal a set of innovative financing tools shrouded in unsubstantiated claims to success and effectiveness that look to have underwhelming promise of 'value for money' in global health. This stems from evidence suggesting design flaws, inadequate application, lack of transparency, private sector profiteering and associated opportunity costs. Thus, contrary to popular claims, they may not be the 'silver bullet' for bridging PPPR financing gaps and addressing costly, complex and multifaceted PPPR interventions.

Indexed as

COVID-19Global HealthPandemicsHumansFinancing pandemic preparednessGlobal health financingInnovative financing mechanismsPandemic preparedness and responsePPPRPPR

Identifiers

PMID40148959
PMCPMC11948775

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.