ArticleJournal of epidemiology and global health2026
Global Health Reform through a Regional Lens: The Middle East and Central Asia Perspective.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and global health, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReform of the global health architecture has emerged as a central policy priority, yet regionally grounded perspectives that translate critical analysis into actionable directions remain limited. This gap is particularly evident in the Middle East and Central Asia (MECA), a region characterized by diverse political and economic contexts, fragile and emergency-prone settings, and wide variation in health system capacity and governance. This study aimed to assess MECA stakeholders’ perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of the current global health architecture, articulate a shared regional vision for future governance, and identify and prioritize reform directions relevant to the MECA context.
methodsA mixed-methods, multi-phase deliberative policy dialogue approach was employed. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 47 key informants, an online survey of 248 stakeholders from 17 MECA countries, and a two-day regional dialogue involving 49 senior leaders from 14 countries. The exercise culminated in a structured prioritization completed by 34 participants. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically using a hybrid inductive–deductive approach, quantitative data were summarized descriptively, and findings were triangulated across phases.
resultsFindings were synthesized into five priority reform directions reflecting shared concerns around governance imbalances, fragmented financing, and limited regional agency. Aligning global health financing and technical support with nationally defined priorities emerged as the top priority, selected by over 90% of participants in the prioritization exercise. Strengthening regional leadership and enhancing regional collaboration mechanisms were each prioritized by approximately 70% of participants. Strengthening regional data and digital systems as shared public goods was prioritized by 69%, while reinforcing national leadership for integrated, primary health care (PHC)–centered systems was prioritized by 63%. Across reform areas, participants emphasized strengthening and connecting existing institutions rather than creating new structures and highlighted the importance of clear implementation frameworks, accountability mechanisms, and measurable progress indicators.
conclusionsFrom a MECA perspective, effective global health reform requires a shift away from fragmented, externally driven models toward more regionally anchored, country-led, and integrated systems grounded in shared accountability. This includes rebalancing decision-making power, improving coherence across governance and financing mechanisms, and strengthening national and regional ownership of health priorities. These findings provide an empirically grounded regional perspective to inform ongoing global discussions on building more equitable, resilient, and responsive health systems.
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.