Are rhetorical commitments to adolescents reflected in planning documents? An exploratory content analysis of adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Global Financing Facility country plans.

BACKGROUND: The Global Financing Facility (GFF) offers an opportunity to close the financing gap that holds back gains in women, children's and adolescent health. However, very little work exists examining GFF practice, particularly for adolescent health. As momentum builds for the GFF, we examine initial GFF planning documents to inform future national and multi-lateral efforts to advance adolescent sexual and reproductive health. METHODS: We undertook a content analysis of the first 11 GFF Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents available on the GFF website. The countries involved include Bangladesh, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda. RESULTS: While several country documents signal understanding and investment in adolescents as a strategic area, this is not consistent across all countries, nor between Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents. In both types of documents commitments weaken as one moves from programming content to indicators to investment. Important contributions include how teenage pregnancy is a universal concern, how adolescent and youth friendly health services and school-based programs are supported in several country documents, how gender is noted as a key social determinant critical for mainstreaming across the health system, alongside the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration, and the acknowledgement of adolescent rights. Weaknesses include the lack of comprehensive analysis of adolescent health needs, inconsistent investments in adolescent friendly health services and school based programs, missed opportunities in not supporting multi-component and multi-level initiatives to change gender norms involving adolescent boys in addition to adolescent girls, and neglect of governance approaches to broker effective multi-sectoral collaboration, community engagement and adolescent involvement. CONCLUSION: There are important examples of how the GFF supports adolescents and their sexual and reproductive health. However, more can be done. While building on service delivery approaches more consistently, it must also fund initiatives that address the main social and systems drivers of adolescent health. This requires capacity building for the technical aspects of adolescent health, but also engaging politically to ensure that the right actors are convened to prioritize adolescent health in country plans and to ensure accountability in the GFF process itself.

Form and functioning: contextualising the start of the global financing facility policy processes in Burkina Faso.

BACKGROUND: Burkina Faso joined the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents (GFF) in 2017 to address persistent gaps in funding for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition (RMNCAH-N). Few empirical papers deal with how global funding mechanisms, and specifically GFF, support resource mobilisation for health nationally. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the policy processes of developing the GFF planning documents (the Investment Case and Project Appraisal Document) in Burkina Faso. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative policy analysis. Data collection included document review (N = 74) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (N = 23). Data were analysed based on the components of the health policy triangle. RESULTS: There was strong national political support to RMNCAH-N interventions, and the process of drawing up the investment case (IC) and the project appraisal document was inclusive and multi-sectoral. Despite high-level policy commitments, subsequent implementation of the World Bank project, including the GFF contribution, was perceived by respondents as challenging, even after the project restructuring process occurred. These challenges were due to ongoing policy fragmentation for RMNCAH-N, navigation of differing procedures and perspectives between stakeholders in the setting up of the work, overcoming misunderstandings about the nature of the GFF, and weak institutional anchoring of the IC. Insecurity and political instability also contributed to observed delays and difficulties in implementing the commitments agreed upon. To tackle these issues, transformational and distributive leaderships should be promoted and made effective. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have examined national policy processes linked to the GFF or other global health initiatives. This kind of research is needed to better understand the range of challenges in aligning donor and national priorities encountered across diverse health systems contexts. This study may stimulate others to ensure that the GFF and other global health initiatives respond to local needs and policy environments for better implementation.

Main findings: There was a high level of political commitment to the Global Financing Facility in Burkina Faso, but its implementation has been hindered by policy fragmentation, competing interests, weak institutional anchoring, and misunderstandings.Added knowledge: This study documents the initiation of a global health initiative, specifically the Global Financing Facility, including the development and implementation of its planning documents, namely the Investment Case and Project Appraisal Document.Global health impact for policy and action: An understanding of the factors that facilitated or impeded the policy processes of developing and implementing the Global Financing Facility can inform the design and implementation of future initiatives.

Policy analysis of the Global Financing Facility in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, Uganda joined the Global Financing Facility (GFF), a Global Health Initiative for Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health (RMNCAH). Similar initiatives have been found to be powerful entities influencing national policy and priorities in Uganda, but few independent studies have assessed the GFF. OBJECTIVE: To understand the policy process and contextual factors in Uganda that influenced the content of the GFF policy documents (Investment Case and Project Appraisal). METHODS: We conducted a qualitative policy analysis. The data collection included a document review of national RMNCAH policy documents and key informant interviews with national stakeholders involved in the development process of GFF policy documents (N = 16). Data were analyzed thematically using the health policy triangle. RESULTS: The process of developing the GFF documents unfolded rapidly with a strong country-led approach by the government. Work commenced in late 2015; the Investment Case was published in April 2016 and the Project Appraisal Document was completed and presented two months later. The process was steered by technocrats from government agencies, donor agencies, academics and selected civil society organisations, along with the involvement of political figures. The Ministry of Health was at the center of coordinating the process and navigating the contestations between technical priorities and political motivations. Although civil society organisations took part in the process, there were concerns that some were excluded. CONCLUSION: The learnings from this study provide insights into the translation of globally conceived health initiatives at country level, highlighting enablers and challenges. The study shows the challenges of trying to have a 'country-led' initiative, as such initiatives can still be heavily influenced by 'elites'. Given the diversity of actors with varying interests, achieving representation of key actors, particularly those from underserved groups, can be difficult and may necessitate investing further time and resources in their engagement.

Main findings: Existing policy priorities and platforms helped to shape the Global Financing Facility agenda in Uganda, with leadership from the Ministry of Health and subtle yet clear influences from global actors and national civil society.Added knowledge: The study contributes to the understanding of the complexities in translating a globally conceived initiative into one that is locally owned.Global health impact for policy and action: Global health initiatives must work with government to enable local ownership thorough more engagement with diverse national stakeholders in order to understand their expectations from inception and address them as part of processes of strengthening robust policy review and implementation.

Any better? A follow-up content analysis of adolescent sexual and reproductive health inclusion in Global Financing Facility country planning documents.

BACKGROUND: The Global Financing Facility (GFF) supports national reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, adolescent health, and nutrition needs. Previous analysis examined how adolescent sexual and reproductive health was represented in GFF national planning documents for 11 GFF partner countries. OBJECTIVES: This paper furthers that analysis for 16 GFF partner countries as part of a Special Series. METHODS: Content analysis was conducted on publicly available GFF planning documents for Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, CAR, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Vietnam. Analysis considered adolescent health content (mindset), indicators (measure) and funding (money) relative to adolescent sexual and reproductive health needs, using a tracer indicator. RESULTS: Countries with higher rates of adolescent pregnancy had more content relating to adolescent reproductive health, with exceptions in fragile contexts. Investment cases had more adolescent content than project appraisal documents. Content gradually weakened from mindset to measures to money. Related conditions, such as fistula, abortion, and mental health, were insufficiently addressed. Documents from Burkina Faso and Malawi demonstrated it is possible to include adolescent programming even within a context of shifting or selective priorities. CONCLUSION: Tracing prioritisation and translation of commitments into plans provides a foundation for discussing global funding for adolescents. We highlight positive aspects of programming and areas for strengthening and suggest broadening the perspective of adolescent health beyond the reproductive health to encompass issues, such as mental health. This paper forms part of a growing body of accountability literature, supporting advocacy work for adolescent programming and funding.

Main findings: Adolescent health content is inconsistently included in the Global Financing Facility country documents, and despite strong or positive examples, the content is stronger in investment cases than project appraisal documents, and diminishes when comparing content, indicators and financing.Added knowledge: Although adolescent health content is generally strongest in countries with the highest proportion of births before age 18, there are exceptions in fragile contexts and gaps in addressing important issues related to adolescent health.Global health impact for policy and action: Adolescent health programming supported by the Global Financing Facility should build on examples of strong country plans, be more consistent in addressing adolescent health, and be accompanied by public transparency to facilitate accountability work such as this.

Global Financing Facility investments for vulnerable populations: content analysis regarding maternal and newborn health and stillbirths in 11 African countries, 2015 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: The Global Financing Facility (GFF) was launched in 2015 to catalyse increased domestic and external financing for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, adolescent health, and nutrition. Half of the deaths along this continuum are neonatal deaths, stillbirths or maternal deaths; yet these topics receive the least aid financing across the continuum. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a policy content analysis of maternal and newborn health (MNH), including stillbirths, in GFF country planning documents, and assess the mortality burden related to the investment. METHODS: Content analysis was conducted on 24 GFF policy documents, investment cases and project appraisal documents (PADs), from 11 African countries. We used a systematic data extraction approach and applied a framework for analysis considering mindset, measures, and money for MNH interventions and mentions of mortality outcomes. We compared PAD investments to MNH-related deaths by country. RESULTS: For these 11 countries, USD$1,894 million of new funds were allocated through the PADs, including USD$303 million (16%) from GFF. All documents had strong content on MNH, with particular focus on pregnancy and childbirth interventions. The investment cases commonly included comprehensive results frameworks, and PADs generally had less technical content and fewer indicators. Mortality outcomes were mentioned, especially for maternal. Stillbirths were rarely included as targets. Countries had differing approaches to funding descriptions. PAD allocations are commensurate with the burden. CONCLUSIONS: The GFF country plans present a promising start in addressing MNH. Emphasising links between investments and burden, explicitly including stillbirth, and highlighting high-impact packages, as appropriate, could potentially increase impact.

Main finding: Maternal and newborn health care packages are strongly included in the Global Financing Facility policy documents for 11 African countries, especially regarding pregnancy and childbirth, though less for stillbirth, or postnatal care, or small and sick newborn care.Added knowledge: This study is the first independent content analysis of Global Financing Facility investment cases and related project appraisal documents, revealing mostly consistent content for maternal and newborn health across documents and overall correlation between national mortality burden and investments committed.Global health impact for policy and action: The Global Financing Facility have demonstrated promising initial investments for maternal and newborn health, although there are also missed opportunities for strengthening, especially for some neonatal high-impact packages and counting impact on stillbirths.