Global health initiatives in Africa – governance, priorities, harmonisation and alignment

Abstract

BackgroundThe advent of global health initiatives (GHIs) has changed the landscape and architecture of health financing in low and middle income countries, particularly in Africa. Over the last decade, the African Region has realised improvements in health outcomes as a result of interventions implemented by both governments and development partners. However, alignment and harmonisation of partnerships and GHIs are still difficult in the African countries with inadequate capacity for their effective coordination.MethodBoth published and grey literature was reviewed to understand the governance, priorities, harmonisation and alignment of GHIs in the African Region; to synthesise the knowledge and highlight the persistent challenges; and to identify gaps for future research.ResultsGHI governance structures are often separate from those of the countries in which they operate. Their divergent funding channels and modalities may have contributed to the failure of governments to track their resources. There is also evidence that basically, earmarking and donor conditions drive funding allocations regardless of countries’ priorities. Although studies cite the lack of harmonisation of GHI priorities with national strategies, evidence shows improvements in that area over time. GHIs have used several strategies and mechanisms to involve the private sector. These have widened the pool of health service policy-makers and providers to include groups such as civil society organisations (CSOs), with both positive and negative implications. GHI strategies such as co-financing by countries as a condition for support have been positive in achieving sustainability of interventions.ConclusionsGHI approaches have not changed substantially over the years but there has been evolution in terms of donor funding and conditions. GHIs still largely operate in a vertical manner, bypassing country systems; they compete for the limited human resources; they influence country policies; and they are not always harmonised with other donors. To maximise returns on GHI support, there is need to ensure that their approaches are more comprehensive as opposed to being selective; to improve GHI country level governance and alignment with countries’ changing epidemiologic profiles; and to strengthen their involvement of CSOs.

Understanding the persistence of vertical (stand-alone) HIV clinics in the health system in Uganda: a qualitative synthesis of patient and provider perspectives

“…As some scholars have argued, the enduring verticalized HIV programming is sustained by external HIV financing especially from Global Health Initiatives (GHIs) [14, 50–52, 53]. …”

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

“…Pragmatically, it could be argued that these research priorities are less important than ensuring universal coverage of basic hypertension screening and simplistic treatment algorithms. The widespread success of HIV treatment programmes demonstrates the capability to address complexity within a public health approach [67,68]. Innovative hypertension programmes are integrating care into existing HIV programmes [69], utilising mobile technology [70,71] and implementing multi-pronged community interventions [72].…”

Moving towards universal health coverage: The need for a strengthened planning process

“…For example, the Global Fund addressed HIV TB and malaria, US president's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief addressed HIV/AIDS; Stop TB focused on TB; the malaria partnership focused on malaria and the global alliance for vaccine initiative focused on Immunisation. GHI demanded new strategic plans and guidelines despite the existence of national health sector strategic plans (HSSP) . This resulted in what was perceived as contradictions in strategic planning frameworks partly stemming from funding conditionalities, different time frames, and re‐verticalisation of planning, management and monitoring, and evaluation systems …”

“…GHI demanded new strategic plans and guidelines despite the existence of national health sector strategic plans (HSSP) . This resulted in what was perceived as contradictions in strategic planning frameworks partly stemming from funding conditionalities, different time frames, and re‐verticalisation of planning, management and monitoring, and evaluation systems …”