ArticleBMJ global health2025
Essential aid made fully visible: understanding the proCHW financing landscape analysing accessible donor data sources.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCommunity health workers (CHWs) play a critical role in extending healthcare services to underserved populations, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Professional CHWs (proCHWs), who are salaried, skilled, supplied and supervised, are essential for achieving Universal Health Coverage and other global health goals. Despite the growing recognition of proCHWs, there is limited understanding of the global financing landscape for these workers. This study analyses the availability of data detailing the allocation of funding from major global development organisations for proCHWs.
methodsThe study was conducted by the Community Health Impact Coalition (CHIC) using a two-stage approach. First, eight major global funders were selected through a consultative process with CHIC members, chosen based on their perceived influence, leadership in community health and scale of financial commitments. The second stage involved mapping and analysing the funding availability of these organisations through desk reviews, brief consultations and analysis of public funding databases. The transparency of proCHW-specific funding data was assessed using a classification system: 'yes' (full availability), 'partial' (moderate availability) and 'no' (low/no availability).
resultsThe analysis revealed a gap in accessible data required to quantify the funding for CHWs, particularly proCHWs, across the eight organisations. Only two organisations, The Global Fund and the President's Malaria Initiative, provided partial data visibility, while none fully disclosed specific funding amounts for proCHW programmes. Most organisations did not systematically track or report CHW investments, making it challenging to assess global funding flows.
conclusionsThe study highlights gaps in the availability of data related to funding for proCHWs, hampering the ability to track and evaluate investments in proCHW programmes. The study recommends global funders improve the specificity of their data reporting and integrate proCHW indicators into standard reporting tools. Enhanced data reporting is essential for optimising investments in proCHW programmes and advancing global health equity.
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.