Beyond gender mainstreaming: transforming humanitarian action, organizations and culture.

The United Nations and major humanitarian organizations have made policy commitments to promote gender equality and empower women and girls. This study assesses the extent to which humanitarian responses have met these commitments based on reviews of gender mainstreaming, textual analysis of policy and program cycle documents, and interviews with humanitarian actors. The analysis reveals that while gender mainstreaming may raise awareness and make fixes at the margins, its focus has been limited to altering internal processes rather than emphasizing results for women and men and girls and boys. Our study also analyzes the cultural and institutional context in which gender mainstreaming takes place. The culture of humanitarian organizations has been characterized as hierarchical and driven by a short-term crisis response with a distinctly macho style of functioning, which is misaligned with gender mainstreaming. We propose replacing gender mainstreaming with a results-focused approach rooted in behavioral science that uses evidence of the conscious and non-conscious drivers of human behavior to address problems, alongside other efforts to change the internal culture of humanitarian organizations.

Building a global policy agenda to prioritize preterm birth: A qualitative analysis on factors shaping global health policymaking.

Background: Preterm birth, defined as infants born before 37 weeks of gestation, is the largest contributor to child mortality. Despite new evidence highlighting the global burden of prematurity, policymakers have failed to adequately prioritize preterm birth despite the magnitude of its health impacts. Given current levels of political attention and investment, it is unlikely that the global community will be adequately mobilized to meet the 2012 Born Too Soon report goal of reducing the preterm birth rate by 50% by 2025. Methods: This study adapts the Shiffman and Smith framework for political priority to examine four components contributing to policy action in global health: actor power, ideas, political context, and issue characteristics. We conducted key informant interviews with 18 experts in prematurity and reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) and reviewed key literature on preterm birth. We aimed to identify the factors that shape the global political priority of preterm birth and to describe policy opportunities to increase its priority moving forward. Results: The global preterm birth community (academic researchers, multilateral organizations, government agencies, and civil society organizations) lacks evidence about the causes of and solutions to preterm birth; and country-level data quality is poor with gaps in the understanding required for implementing effective interventions. Limited funding compounds these challenges, creating divisions among experts on what policy actions to recommend. These factors contribute to the lack of priority and underrepresentation of preterm birth within the larger RMNCH agenda. Conclusion: Increasing the political priority of prematurity is essential to reduce preventable newborn and child mortality, a key target of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal for health (target 3.2). This study identifies three policy recommendations for the preterm birth community: address data and evidence gaps, clarify and invest in viable solutions, and bring visibility to prematurity within the larger RMNCH agendas.

Measuring development assistance for health systems strengthening and health security: an analysis using the Creditor Reporting System database.

Background: Health systems strengthening (HSS) and health security are two pillars of universal health coverage (UHC). Investments in these areas are essential for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals and are of heightened relevance given the emergence of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study aims to generate information on development assistance for health (DAH) for these areas, including how to track it and how funding levels align with country needs. Methods: We developed a framework to analyze the amount of DAH disbursed in 2015 for the six building blocks of the health system ('system-wide HSS') plus health security (emergency preparedness, risk management, and response) at both the global (transnational) and country level. We reviewed 2,427 of 32,801 DAH activities in the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) database (80% of the total value of disbursements in 2015) and additional public information sources. Additional aid activities were identified through a keyword search. Results: In 2015, we estimated that US$3.1 billion (13.4%) of the US$22.9 billion of DAH captured in the CRS database was for system-wide HSS and health security: US$2.5 billion (10.9%) for system-wide HSS, mostly for infrastructure, and US$0.6 billion (2.5%) for system-wide health security. US$567.1 million (2.4%) was invested in supporting these activities at the global level. If responses to individual health emergencies are included, 7.5% of total DAH (US$1.7B) was for health security. We found a correlation between DAH for HSS and maternal mortality rates, and we interpret this as evidence that HSS aid generally flowed to countries with greater need. Conclusions : Achieving UHC by 2030 will require greater investments in system-wide HSS and proactive health emergency preparedness. It may be appropriate for donors to more prominently consider country needs and global functions when investing in health security and HSS.

International Funding for Global Common Goods for Health: An Analysis Using the Creditor Reporting System and G-FINDER Databases.

West Africa's Ebola epidemic of 2014-2016 exposed, among other problems, the under-funding of transnational global health activities known as global common goods for health (CGH), global functions such as pandemic preparedness and research and development (R&D) for neglected diseases. To mobilize sustainable funding for global CGH, it is critical first to understand existing financing flowing to different types of global CGH. In this study, we estimate trends in international spending for global CGH in 2013, 2015, and 2017, encompassing the era before and after the Ebola epidemic. We use a measure of international funding that combines official development assistance (ODA) for health with additional international spending on R&D for diseases of poverty, a measure called ODA+. We classify ODA+ into funding for three global functions-provision of global public goods, management of cross-border externalities, and fostering of global health leadership and stewardship-and country-specific aid. International funding for global functions increased between 2013 and 2015 by $1.4 billion to a total of $7.3 billion in 2015. It then declined to $7.0 billion in 2017, accounting for 24% of all ODA+ in 2017. These findings provide empirical evidence of the reactive nature of international funders for global CGH. While international funders increased funding for global functions in response to the Ebola outbreak, they failed to sustain that funding. To meet future global health challenges proactively, international funders should allocate more funding for global functions.

Improving resource mobilisation for global health R&D: a role for coordination platforms?

Achieving many of the health targets in the Sustainable Development Goals will not be possible without increased financing for global health research and development (R&D). Yet financing for neglected disease product development fell from 2009-2015, with the exception of a one-time injection of Ebola funding. An important cause of the global health R&D funding gap is lack of coordination across R&D initiatives. In particular, existing initiatives lack robust priority-setting processes and transparency about investment decisions. Low-income countries (LICs) and middle-income countries (MICs) are also often excluded from global investment initiatives and priority-setting discussions, leading to limited investment by these countries. An overarching global health R&D coordination platform is one promising response to these challenges. This analysis examines the essential functions such a platform must play, how it should be structured to maximise effectiveness and investment strategies for diversifying potential investors, with an emphasis on building LIC and MIC engagement. Our analysis suggests that a coordination platform should have four key functions: building consensus on R&D priorities; facilitating information sharing about past and future investments; building in accountability mechanisms to track R&D spending against investment targets and curating a portfolio of prioritised projects alongside mechanisms to link funders to these projects. Several design features are likely to increase the platform's success: public ownership and management; separation of coordination and financing functions; inclusion of multiple diseases; coordination across global and national efforts; development of an international R&D 'roadmap' and a strategy for the financial sustainability of the platform's secretariat.

Achieving a "Grand Convergence" in Global Health by 2035: Rwanda Shows the Way Comment on "Improving the World's Health Through the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Perspectives From Rwanda".

Global Health 2035, the report of The Lancet Commission on Investing in Health, laid out a bold, highly ambitious framework for making rapid progress in improving global public health outcomes. It showed that with the right health investments, the international community could achieve a "grand convergence" in global health-a reduction in avertable infectious, maternal, and child deaths down to universally low levels-within a generation. Rwanda's success in rapidly reducing such deaths over the last 20 years shows that convergence is feasible. Binagwaho and Scott have argued that 5 lessons from this success are the importance of equity, quality health services, evidence-informed policy, intersectoral collaboration, and effective collaboration between countries and multilateral agencies. This article re-examines these lessons through the lens of the Global Health 2035 report to analyze how the experience in Rwanda might be generalized for other countries to making progress towards achieving a grand convergence.

How much donor financing for health is channelled to global versus country-specific aid functions?

The slow global response to the Ebola crisis in west Africa suggests that important gaps exist in donor financing for key global functions, such as support for health research and development for diseases of poverty and strengthening of outbreak preparedness. In this Health Policy, we use the International Development Statistics databases to quantify donor support for such functions. We classify donor funding for health into aid for global functions (provision of global public goods, management of cross-border externalities, and fostering of leadership and stewardship) versus country-specific aid. We use a new measure of donor funding that combines official development assistance (ODA) for health with additional donor spending on research and development (R&D) for diseases of poverty. Much R&D spending falls outside ODA--ie, the assistance that is conventionally reported through ODA databases of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This expanded definition, which we term health ODA plus, provides a more comprehensive picture of donor support for health that could reshape how policy makers will approach their support for global health.