Donor funding health policy and systems research in low- and middle-income countries: how much, from where and to whom.

BACKGROUND: The need for sufficient and reliable funding to support health policy and systems research (HPSR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been widely recognised. Currently, most resources to support such activities come from traditional development assistance for health (DAH) donors; however, few studies have examined the levels, trends, sources and national recipients of such support - a gap this research seeks to address. METHOD: Using OECD's Creditor Reporting System database, we classified donor funding commitments using a keyword analysis of the project-level descriptions of donor supported projects to estimate total funding available for HPSR-related activities annually from bilateral and multilateral donors, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to LMICs over the period 2000-2014. RESULTS: Total commitments to HPSR-related activities have greatly increased since 2000, peaked in 2010, and have held steady since 2011. Over the entire study period (2000-2014), donors committed a total of $4 billion in funding for HPSR-related activities or an average of $266 million a year. Over the last 5 years (2010-2014), donors committed an average of $434 million a year to HPSR-related activities. Funding for HPSR is heavily concentrated, with more than 93% coming from just 10 donors and only represents approximately 2% of all donor funding for health and population projects. Countries in the sub-Saharan African region are the major recipients of HPSR funding. CONCLUSION: Funding for HPSR-related activities has generally increased over the study period; however, donor support to such activities represents only a small proportion of total DAH and has not grown in recent years. Donors should consider increasing the proportion of funds they allocate to support HPSR activities in order to further build the evidence base on how to build stronger health systems.

New approaches to ranking countries for the allocation of development assistance for health: choices, indicators and implications.

The distributions of income and health within and across countries are changing. This challenges the way donors allocate development assistance for health (DAH) and particularly the role of gross national income per capita (GNIpc) in classifying countries to determine whether countries are eligible to receive assistance and how much they receive. Informed by a literature review and stakeholder consultations and interviews, we developed a stepwise approach to the design and assessment of country classification frameworks for the allocation of DAH, with emphasis on critical value choices. We devised 25 frameworks, all which combined GNIpc and at least one other indicator into an index. Indicators were selected and assessed based on relevance, salience, validity, consistency, and availability and timeliness, where relevance concerned the extent to which the indicator represented country's health needs, domestic capacity, the expected impact of DAH, or equity. We assessed how the use of the different frameworks changed the rankings of low- and middle-income countries relative to a country's ranking based on GNIpc alone. We found that stakeholders generally considered needs to be the most important concern to be captured by classification frameworks, followed by inequality, expected impact and domestic capacity. We further found that integrating a health-needs indicator with GNIpc makes a significant difference for many countries and country categories-and especially middle-income countries with high burden of unmet health needs-while the choice of specific indicator makes less difference. This together with assessments of relevance, salience, validity, consistency, and availability and timeliness suggest that donors have reasons to include a health-needs indicator in the initial classification of countries. It specifically suggests that life expectancy and disability-adjusted life year rate are indicators worth considering. Indicators related to other concerns may be mainly relevant at different stages of the decision-making process, require better data, or both.