China-UK partnership for global health: practices and implications of the Global Health Support Programme 2012–2019

Abstract

Background: Over the past few decades, a series of major challenges to global health have successively emerged, which call for China's deeper engagement in global health governance. In this context, the China-UK Global Health Support Programme (GHSP) was launched in 2012 with about 12 million pounds funded by the United Kingdom. Objectives: The GHSP was expected to explore a new type of China-UK partnership to strengthen the cooperation in global health, and enhance China's capacity to engage in global health governance and provide effective development assistance in health (DAH), in order to jointly improve global health outcomes. Programme design and implementation: The GHSP was programmed to support capacity building activities in Chinese experience distillation, DAH, global health governance and pilot partnership at national and institutional levels between October 2012 and March 2019. These activities were assigned to different project implementing agencies (PIAs) and their project cooperative agencies (PCAs) or pilot areas, and were then implemented under the guidance and management by the strategic oversight committee and the project management office of GHSP respectively. Main achievements: At the national level, the GHSP held five rounds of China-UK high-level dialogues, conducted studies on China Global Health Strategies to provide robust evidence for developing and issuing relevant national policies, and supported the establishment of the China Global Health Network. At the institutional level, the GHSP funded a series of activities in research, training, international exchange and pilots etc., produced a large number of high-quality research outputs and policy briefings, cultivated a group of PIAs and individual researchers, facilitated the partnership building between the PIAs and PCAs, enhanced the practical ability of Chinese institutions to conduct overseas DAH, and improved the health service delivery and outcomes in pilot areas of three Asian and African countries. Policy implications: In the GHSP, China and UK have established a good model for North-South Cooperation and the programme facilitated the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by building a new type of bilateral partnership and carrying out triangular cooperation practices. This model has demonstrated huge potential for cooperation through partnership and can also be referred to by other countries to develop bilateral partnerships.

Quality and Performance Measurement in Primary Diabetes Care: A Qualitative Study in Urban China

“…58 Also, standardizing performance thresholds to individual's characteristics, such as residents' age and socio-economic status, can improve the clinical adequacy of indicators and further reduce the impetus on physicians to game the system. [65][66][67] As the evaluation system used in Shanghai was likely influenced by the UK's QOF, [36][37][38][39] policy-makers in China should also be aware of the framework's limitations, as identified in the United Kingdom. For example, once the targets for incentive payments have been fully met, additional health gains from the QOF program become negligible.…”

“…These common features include the use of indicators, incentives, and weighted scoring systems (both with a sum of 1000 points) to augment family doctors' performance. This resemblance may be due to numerous Chinese articles about the QOF that were published and which included recommendations for policymakers in China to implement incentive schemes for primary care that are similar to those of the United Kingdom, [36][37][38][39] and specifically in Shanghai. 38,39 The three indicators used by the Shanghai Health Commission to measure primary diabetes care originated from China's national basic public health service standards, the first edition of which was published in 2009, and its subsequent editions.…”

Deployment of workforce in global health: what should be the priorities for China?

“…Different stakeholders have different perceptions on this topic. International organizations and Chinese embassies emphasized China’s contribution to global health [ 8 ], while Chinese administrative agencies and professional institutes took “professional skills” for granted, believing that communication skills and limited field practices are the most challenging aspects of global health engagement [ 19 ]. This suggests that Chinese global health agencies should develop global health mindsets through global health practices and proactive integration within the global community.…”

“…The issue for deployment is not just the scarcity of health professionals but the necessary “qualified capacity” needed for global health initiatives [ 8 ]. There are limited number of training schools in China that offer professional global health courses and furthermore, the quality of training is not at par with the expectations of the international communities [ 9 , 10 ].…”

Trends in global health research among universities in China: a bibliometric analysis

“…In a recent paper, Kwete et al [10] reviewed the research capacity of global health institutions in China, focusing on several key quantitative indicators, such as scholarly publications, research grants, faculty members, course curricula, and trainees. Other studies highlighted the opportunities and potential for global health research in China and identified several challenges [6,[11][12][13][14]. Nevertheless, evidence of the progress of Chinese universities' contributions to global health research is generally limited.…”