Search

Background: Since 2015, the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) has measured progress in achieving health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) annually worldwide. Little is known about the status and attainment of indicators of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by 65 countries from the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) proposed by China in 2013., Methods: Data from GBDs were used to estimate 24 NCD-related SDG indicators in BRI countries from 1990 to 2017. Each indicator was scored from 0 to 100 to compare multiple indicators over the study period. The natural log of the annual change in each location and year and weighted annual rates of change were used to generate projections for 2030. National-level estimates were determined by socio-demographic index (SDI) quintiles in BRI countries with more than 1 million inhabitants., Results: In 2017, the median overall score of NCD-related SDG index for the 66 BRI countries was 60 points, ranging from 29 points in Afghanistan to 84 points in Israel. More than 80% of countries achieved the SDG 2030 maternal mortality (MM) rate target in 2017, and the national skilled birth attendance rate was above 99% in more than 59% countries. However, none of the BRI countries achieved the goal for children's overweight, modern methods of contraception, and universal health coverage. It was predicted that 80.4% of NCD-related SDG targets would be achieved in these countries by 2030. The overall score of NCD-related SDG index were positively associated with SDI quintiles., Conclusion: For many indicators, the achieved progress in many countries is less than the annual rate necessary to meet SDG targets, indicating that substantial efforts need to be made in the coming years. Progress should be accelerated through collaborations between countries, implementation of NCD prevention and control strategies, and monitoring of inequalities in NCD-related SDGs within populations., (© 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Background: Development assistance for health (DAH) is an important source of financing for health for many low-income and some middle-income countries. Most DAH has predominantly been contributed by high-income countries. However, in the context of economic progress and changing global priorities, DAH contributions from countries of the Global South such as India have gained importance. In this paper, we estimate DAH contributed by India between 2009 and 2020., Methods: We leveraged data from budgetary documents, databases, and financial reports of the Ministry of External Affairs and multilateral organizations to estimate DAH contributions. The proportions of development assistance that go towards health in major recipient countries were estimated and reported by recipient country and year., Results: Between 2009 and 2020, DAH contributed by India to bilateral and multilateral partners totaled $206.0 million. South Asian countries including Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar received the most DAH from India. DAH contributed relative to DAH received ranged from 1.42% in 2009 to 5.26% in 2018, the latest year with country-level data. Health focus areas prioritized by India included technical training and innovation, health care infrastructure support, and supply of medications and medical equipment., Conclusion: India is an important development partner to many countries-particularly to those in the South Asian region. India's DAH allocation strategy prioritizes contributions toward neighboring countries in the South Asia region in several health focus areas. Detailed project-level data are needed to estimate DAH contributions from India with greater precision and accuracy., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Moitra et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Investing in the health workforce is key to achieving the health-related Sustainable Development Goals. However, achieving these Goals requires addressing a projected global shortage of 18 million health workers (mostly in low- and middle-income countries). Within that context, in 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted the WHO Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health: Workforce 2030. In the Strategy, the role of official development assistance to support the health workforce is an area of interest. The objective of this study is to examine progress on implementing the Global Strategy by updating previous analyses that estimated and examined official development assistance targeted towards human resources for health., Methods: We leveraged data from IHME's Development Assistance for Health database, COVID development assistance database and the OECD's Creditor Reporting System online database. We utilized an updated keyword list to identify the relevant human resources for health-related activities from the project databases. When possible, we also estimated the fraction of human resources for health projects that considered and/or focused on gender as a key factor. We described trends, examined changes in the availability of human resources for health-related development assistance since the adoption of the Global Strategy and compared disease burden and availability of donor resources., Results: Since 2016, development assistance for human resources for health has increased with a slight dip in 2019. In 2020, fueled by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it reached an all-time high of $4.1 billion, more than double its value in 2016 and a 116.5% increase over 2019. The highest share (42.4%) of support for human resources for health-related activities has been directed towards training. Since the adoption of the Global Strategy, donor resources for health workforce-related activities have on average increased by 13.3% compared to 16.0% from 2000 through 2015. For 47 countries identified by the WHO as having severe workforce shortages, the availability of donor resources remains modest., Conclusions: Since 2016, donor support for health workforce-related activities has increased. However, there are lingering concerns related to the short-term nature of activities that donor funding supports and its viability for creating sustainable health systems., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Childhood immunisation is one of the most cost-effective health interventions. However, despite its known value, global access to vaccines remains far from complete. Although supply-side constraints lead to inadequate vaccine coverage in many health systems, there is no comprehensive analysis of the funding for immunisation. We aimed to fill this gap by generating estimates of funding for immunisation disaggregated by the source of funding and the type of activities in order to highlight the funding landscape for immunisation and inform policy making., Methods: For this financial modelling study, we estimated annual spending on immunisations for 135 low-income and middle-income countries (as determined by the World Bank) from 2000 to 2017, with a focus on government, donor, and out-of-pocket spending, and disaggregated spending for vaccines and delivery costs, and routine schedules and supplementary campaigns. To generate these estimates, we extracted data from National Health Accounts, the WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Forms, comprehensive multi-year plans, databases from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's 2019 development assistance for health database. We estimated total spending on immunisation by aggregating the government, donor, prepaid private, and household spending estimates., Findings: Between 2000 and 2017, funding for immunisation totalled US$112·4 billion (95% uncertainty interval 108·5-118·5). Aggregated across all low-income and middle-income countries, government spending consistently remained the largest source of funding, providing between 60·0% (57·7-61·9) and 79·3% (73·8-81·4) of total immunisation spending each year (corresponding to between $2·5 billion [2·3-2·8] and $6·4 billion [6·0-7·0] each year). Across income groups, immunisation spending per surviving infant was similar in low-income and lower-middle-income countries and territories, with average spending of $40 (38-42) in low-income countries and $42 (39-46) in lower-middle-income countries, in 2017. In low-income countries and territories, development assistance made up the largest share of total immunisation spending (69·4% [64·6-72·0]; $630·2 million) in 2017. Across the 135 countries, we observed higher vaccine coverage and increased government spending on immunisation over time, although in some countries, predominantly in Latin America and the Caribbean and in sub-Saharan Africa, vaccine coverage decreased over time, while spending increased., Interpretation: These estimates highlight the progress over the past two decades in increasing spending on immunisation. However, many challenges still remain and will require dedication and commitment to ensure that the progress made in the previous decade is sustained and advanced in the next decade for the Immunization Agenda 2030., Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: As the world responds to COVID-19 and aims for the Sustainable Development Goals, the potential for primary healthcare (PHC) is substantial, although the trends and effectiveness of PHC expenditure are unknown. We estimate PHC expenditure for each low-income and middle-income country between 2000 and 2017 and test which health outputs and outcomes were associated with PHC expenditure., Methods: We used three data sources to estimate PHC expenditures: recently published health expenditure estimates for each low-income and middle-income country, which were constructed using 1662 country-reported National Health Accounts; proprietary data from IQVIA to estimate expenditure of prescribed pharmaceuticals for PHC; and household surveys and costing estimates to estimate inpatient vaginal delivery expenditures. We employed regression analyses to measure the association between PHC expenditures and 15 health outcomes and intermediate health outputs., Results: PHC expenditures in low-income and middle-income countries increased between 2000 and 2017, from $41 per capita (95% uncertainty interval $33-$49) to $90 ($73-$105). Expenditures for low-income countries plateaued since 2014 at $17 per capita ($15-$19). As national income increased, the proportion of health expenditures on PHC generally decrease; however, the fraction of PHC expenditures spent via ambulatory care providers grew. Increases in the fraction of health expenditures on PHC was associated with lower maternal mortality rate (p value≤0.001), improved coverage of antenatal care visits (p value≤0.001), measles vaccination (p value≤0.001) and an increase in the Health Access and Quality index (p value≤0.05). PHC expenditure was not systematically associated with all-age mortality, communicable and non-communicable disease (NCD) burden., Conclusion: PHC expenditures were associated with maternal and child health but were not associated with reduction in health burden for other key causes of disability, such as NCDs. To combat changing disease burdens, policy-makers and health professionals need to adapt primary healthcare to ensure continued impact on emerging health challenges., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Coverage rates for immunization have dropped in lower income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns regarding potential outbreaks and premature death. In order to re-invigorate immunization service delivery, sufficient financing must be made available from all sources, and particularly from government resources. This study utilizes the most recent data available to provide an updated comparison of available data sources on government spending on immunization., Methods: We examined data from WHO/UNICEF's Joint Reporting Form (JRF), country Comprehensive Multi-Year Plan (cMYP), country co-financing data for Gavi, and WHO National Health Accounts (NHA) on government spending on immunization for consistency by comparing routine and vaccine spending where both values were reported. We also examined spending trends across time, quantified underreporting and utilized concordance analyses to assess the magnitude of difference between the data sources., Results: Routine immunization spending reported through the cMYP was nearly double that reported through the JRF (rho = 0.64, 95% 0.53 to 0.77) and almost four times higher than that reported through the NHA on average (rho = 3.71, 95% 1.00 to 13.87). Routine immunization spending from the JRF was comparable to spending reported in the NHA (rho = 1.30, 95% 0.97 to 1.75) and vaccine spending from the JRF was comparable to that from the cMYP data (rho = 0.97, 95% 0.84 to 1.12). Vaccine spending from both the JRF and cMYP was higher than Gavi co-financing by a at least two (rho = 2.66, 95% 2.45 to 2.89) and (rho = 2.66, 95% 2.15 to 3.30), respectively., Implications: Overall, our comparative analysis provides a degree of confidence in the validity of existing reporting mechanisms for immunization spending while highlighting areas for potential improvements. Users of these data sources should factor these into consideration when utilizing the data. Additionally, partners should work with governments to encourage more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate reporting of vaccine and immunization spending., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In 2017, development assistance for health (DAH) comprised 5.3% of total health spending in low-income countries. Despite the key role DAH plays in global health-spending, little is known about the characteristics of assistance that may be associated with committed assistance that is actually disbursed. In this analysis, we examine associations between these characteristics and disbursement of committed assistance., Methods: We extracted data from the Creditor Reporting System of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and the WHO National Health Accounts database. Factors examined were off-budget assistance, administrative assistance, publicly sourced assistance and assistance to health systems strengthening. Recipient-country characteristics examined were perceived level of corruption, civil fragility and gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc). We used linear regression methods for panel of data to assess the proportion of committed aid that was disbursed for a given country-year, for each data source., Results: Factors that were associated with a higher disbursement rates include off-budget aid (p<0.001), lower administrative expenses (p<0.01), lower perceived corruption in recipient country (p<0.001), lower fragility in recipient country (p<0.05) and higher GDPpc (p<0.05)., Conclusion: Substantial gaps remain between commitments and disbursements. Characteristics of assistance (administrative, publicly sourced) and indicators of government transparency and fragility are also important drivers associated with disbursement of DAH. There remains a continued need for better aid flow reporting standards and clarity around aid types for better measurement of DAH., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Estimates of government spending and development assistance for tuberculosis exist, but less is known about out-of-pocket and prepaid private spending. We aimed to provide comprehensive estimates of total spending on tuberculosis in low-income and middle-income countries for 2000-17., Methods: We extracted data on tuberculosis spending, unit costs, and health-care use from the WHO global tuberculosis database, Global Fund proposals and reports, National Health Accounts, the WHO-Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective project database, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Development Assistance for Health Database. We extracted data from at least one of these sources for all 135 low-income and middle-income countries using the World Bank 2019 definitions. We estimated tuberculosis spending by source and function for notified (officially reported) and non-notified tuberculosis cases separately and combined, using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression to fill in for missing data and estimate uncertainty. We aggregated estimates of government, out-of-pocket, prepaid private, and development assistance spending on tuberculosis to estimate total spending in 2019 US$., Findings: Total spending on tuberculosis in 135 low-income and middle-income countries increased annually by 3·9% (95% CI 3·0 to 4·6), from $5·7 billion (5·2 to 6·5) in 2000 to $10·9 billion (10·3 to 11·8) in 2017. Government spending increased annually by 5·1% (4·4 to 5·7) between 2000 and 2017, and reached $6·9 billion (6·5 to 7·5) or 63·5% (59·2 to 66·8) of all tuberculosis spending in 2017. Of government spending, $5·8 billion (5·6 to 6·1) was spent on notified cases. Out-of-pocket spending decreased annually by 0·8% (-2·9 to 1·3), from $2·4 billion (1·9 to 3·1) in 2000 to $2·1 billion (1·6 to 2·7) in 2017. Development assistance for country-specific spending on tuberculosis increased from $54·6 million in 2000 to $1·1 billion in 2017. Administrative costs and development assistance for global projects related to tuberculosis care increased from $85·3 million in 2000 to $576·2 million in 2017. 30 high tuberculosis burden countries of low and middle income accounted for 73·7% (71·8-75·8) of tuberculosis spending in 2017., Interpretation: Despite substantial increases since 2000, funding for tuberculosis is still far short of global financing targets and out-of-pocket spending remains high in resource-constrained countries, posing a barrier to patient's access to care and treatment adherence. Of the 30 countries with a high-burden of tuberculosis, just over half were primarily funded by government, while others, especially lower-middle-income and low-income countries, were still primarily dependent on development assistance for tuberculosis or out-of-pocket health spending., Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In low- and middle-income countries, the proportion of pregnant women who use health facilities for delivery remains low. Although delivering in a health facility with skilled health providers can make the critical difference between survival and death for both mother and child, in 2016, more than 25% of pregnant women did not deliver in a health facility in Uganda. This study examines the association of contextual factors measured at the community-level with use of facility-based delivery in Uganda, after controlling for household and individual-level factors., Methods: Pooled household level data of 3310 observations of women who gave birth in the last five years is linked to community level data from the Uganda National Panel Survey (UNPS). A multilevel model that adequately accounted for the clustered nature of the data and the binary outcome of whether or not the woman delivered in a health facility was estimated., Results: The study findings show a positive association at the county level between place of delivery, education and access to health services, and a negative association between place of delivery and poverty. Individuals living in communities with a high level of education amongst the household heads were 1.67 times (95% Confidence Interval: 1.07-2.61) more likely to have had a facility-based delivery compared to women living in communities where household heads did not have high levels of education. Women who lived in counties with a short travel time (less than 33 min) were 1.66 times (95% CI: 1.11-2.48) more likely to have had a facility-based delivery compared to women who lived in counties with longer travel time to any health facility. Women living in poor counties were only 0.64 times (95% CI: 0.42-0.97) as likely to have delivered in a health facility compared to pregnant women from communities with more affluent individuals., Conclusions: The findings on household head's education, community economic status and travel time to a health facility are useful for defining the attributes for targeting and developing relevant nation-wide community-level health promotion campaigns. However, limited evidence was found in broad support of the role of community level factors.

Background: Donor countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been among the largest donors in the world. However, little is known about their contributions for health. In this study, we addressed this gap by estimating the amount of development assistance for health (DAH) contributed by MENA country donors from 2000 to 2017., Methods: We tracked DAH provided and received by the MENA region leveraging publicly available development assistance data in the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) database of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), government agency reports and financial statements from key international development agencies. We generated estimates of DAH provided by the three largest donor countries in the MENA region (UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) and compared contributions to their relative gross domestic product (GDP) and government spending; We captured DAH contributions by other MENA country governments (Egypt, Iran, Qatar, Turkey, etc.) disbursed through multilateral agencies. Additionally, we compared DAH contributed from and provided to the MENA region., Results: In 2017, DAH contributed by the MENA region reached $514.8 million. While UAE ($220.1 million, 43.2%), Saudi Arabia ($177.3 million, 34.8%) and Kuwait ($59.8 million, 11.6%) as sources contributed the majority of DAH in 2017, 58.5% of total DAH from MENA was disbursed through their bilateral agencies, 12.0% through the World Health Organization (WHO) and 3.3% through other United Nations agencies. 44.8% of DAH contributions from MENA was directed to health system strengthening/sector-wide approaches. Relative to their GDP and government spending, DAH level fluctuated across 2000 to 2017 but UAE and Saudi Arabia indicated increasing trends. While considering all MENA countries as recipients, only 10.5% of DAH received by MENA countries were from MENA donors in 2017., Conclusion: MENA country donors especially UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been providing substantial amount of DAH, channeled through their bilateral agencies, WHO and other multilateral agencies, with a prioritized focus on health system strengthening. DAH from the MENA region has been increasing for the past decade and could lend itself to important contributions for the region and the globe.

Introduction: In recent years, China has increased its international engagement in health. Nonetheless, the lack of data on contributions has limited efforts to examine contributions from China. Existing estimates that track development assistance for health (DAH) from China have relied primarily on one dataset. Furthermore, little is known about the disbursing agencies especially the multilaterals through which contributions are disbursed and how these are changing across time. In this study, we generated estimates of DAH from China from 2007 through 2017 and disaggregated those estimates by disbursing agency and health focus area., Methods: We identified the major government agencies providing DAH. To estimate DAH provided by each agency, we leveraged publicly available development assistance data in government agencies' budgets and financial accounts, as well as revenue statements from key international development agencies such as the WHO. We reported trends in DAH from China, disaggregated contributions by disbursing bilateral and multilateral agencies, and compared DAH from China with other traditional donors. We also compared these estimates with existing estimates., Results: DAH provided by China grew dramatically, from US$323.1 million in 2007 to $652.3 million in 2017. During this period, 91.8% of DAH from China was disbursed through its bilateral agencies, including the Ministry of Commerce ($3.7 billion, 64.1%) and the National Health Commission ($917.1 million, 16.1%); the other 8.2% was disbursed through multilateral agencies including the WHO ($236.5 million, 4.1%) and the World Bank ($123.1 million, 2.2%). Relative to its level of economic development, China provided substantially more DAH than would be expected. However, relative to population size and government spending, China's contributions are modest., Conclusion: In the current context of plateauing in the growth rate of DAH contributions, China has the potential to contribute to future global health financing, especially financing for health system strengthening., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

One of the most important gatherings of the world's economic leaders, the G20 Summit and ministerial meetings, takes place in June, 2019. The Summit presents a valuable opportunity to reflect on the provision and receipt of development assistance for health (DAH) and the role the G20 can have in shaping the future of health financing. The participants at the G20 Summit (ie, the world's largest providers of DAH, emerging donors, and DAH recipients) and this Summit's particular focus on global health and the Sustainable Development Goals offers a unique forum to consider the changing DAH context and its pressing questions. In this Health Policy perspective, we examined trends in DAH and its evolution over time, with a particular focus on G20 countries; pointed to persistent and emerging challenges for discussion at the G20 Summit; and highlighted key questions for G20 leaders to address to put the future of DAH on course to meet the expansive Sustainable Development Goals. Key questions include how to best focus DAH for equitable health gains, how to deliver DAH to strengthen health systems, and how to support domestic resource mobilisation and transformative partnerships for sustainable impact. These issues are discussed in the context of the growing effects of climate change, demographic and epidemiological transitions, and a global political shift towards increasing prioritisation of national interests. Although not all these questions are new, novel approaches to allocating DAH that prioritise equity, efficiency, and sustainability, particularly through domestic resource use and mobilisation are needed. Wrestling with difficult questions in a changing landscape is essential to develop a DAH financing system capable of supporting and sustaining crucial global health goals., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sustaining achievements in malaria control and making progress toward malaria elimination requires coordinated funding. We estimated domestic malaria spending by source in 106 countries that were malaria-endemic in 2000-16 or became malaria-free after 2000., Methods: We collected 36 038 datapoints reporting government, out-of-pocket (OOP), and prepaid private malaria spending, as well as malaria treatment-seeking, costs of patient care, and drug prices. We estimated government spending on patient care for malaria, which was added to government spending by national malaria control programmes. For OOP malaria spending, we used data reported in National Health Accounts and estimated OOP spending on treatment. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression was used to ensure estimates were complete and comparable across time and to generate uncertainty., Findings: In 2016, US$4·3 billion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 4·2-4·4) was spent on malaria worldwide, an 8·5% (95% UI 8·1-8·9) per year increase over spending in 2000. Since 2000, OOP spending increased 3·8% (3·3-4·2) per year, amounting to $556 million (487-634) or 13·0% (11·6-14·5) of all malaria spending in 2016. Governments spent $1·2 billion (1·1-1·3) or 28·2% (27·1-29·3) of all malaria spending in 2016, increasing 4·0% annually since 2000. The source of malaria spending varied depending on whether countries were in the malaria control or elimination stage., Interpretation: Tracking global malaria spending provides insight into how far the world is from reaching the malaria funding target of $6·6 billion annually by 2020. Because most countries with a high burden of malaria are low income or lower-middle income, mobilising additional government resources for malaria might be challenging., Funding: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Government health spending is a primary source of funding in the health sector across the world. However, in sub-Saharan Africa, only about a third of all health spending is sourced from the government. The objectives of this study are to describe the growth in government health spending, examine its determinants and explain the variation in government health spending across sub-Saharan African countries., Methods: We used panel data on domestic government health spending in 46 countries in sub-Saharan Africa from 1995 to 2015 from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. A regression model was used to examine the factors associated with government health spending, and Shapley decomposition was used to attribute the contributions of factors to the explained variance in government health spending., Results: While the growth rate in government health spending in sub-Saharan Africa has been positive overall, there are variations across subgroups. Between 1995 and 2015, government health spending in West Africa grew by 6.7% (95% uncertainty intervals [UI]: 6.2% to 7.0%) each year, whereas in Southern Africa it grew by only 4.5% (UI: 4.5% to 4.5%) each year. Furthermore, per-person government health spending ranged from $651 (Namibia) in 2017 purchasing power parity dollars to $4 (Central African Republic) in 2015. Good governance, national income and the share of it that is government spending were positively associated with government health spending. The results from the decomposition, however, showed that individual country characteristics made up the highest percentage of the explained variation in government health spending across sub-Saharan African countries., Conclusion: These findings highlight that a country's policy choices are important for how much the health sector receives. As the attention of the global health community focuses on ways to stimulate domestic government health spending, an understanding that individual country sociopolitical context is an important driver for success will be key., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Skilled health professionals are a critical component of the effective delivery of lifesaving health interventions. The inadequate number of skilled health professionals in many low- and middle-income countries has been identified as a constraint to the achievement of improvements in health outcomes. In response, more international development agencies have provided funds toward broader health system initiatives and health workforce activities in particular. Nonetheless, estimates of the amount of donor funding targeting investments in human resources for health activities are few., Methods: We utilize data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's annual database on development assistance for health. The estimates in the database are generated using data from publicly available databases that track development assistance. To estimate development assistance for human resources for health, we use keywords to identify projects targeted toward human resource processes. We track development for human resources for health from 1990 through 2016. We categorize the types of human-resources-related projects funded and examine the availability of human resources, development assistance for human resources for health, and disease burden., Results: We find that the amount of donor funding directed toward human resources for health has increased from only $34 million in 1990 to $1.5 billion in 2016 (in 2017 US dollars). Overall, $18.5 billion in 2017 US dollars was targeted toward human resources for health between 1990 and 2016. The primary regions receiving these resources were sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Oceania. The main donor countries were the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. The main agencies through which these resources were disbursed are non-governmental organizations (NGOs), US bilateral agencies, and UN agencies., Conclusion: In 2016, less than 4% of development assistance for health could be tied to funding for human resources. Given the central role skilled health workers play in health systems, in order to make credible progress in reducing disparities in health and attaining the goal of universal health coverage for all by 2030, it may be appropriate for more resources to be mobilized in order to guarantee adequate manpower to deliver key health interventions.

Despite dramatic growth between 1990 and 2010, development assistance for health from high-income countries and development agencies to low- and middle-income countries has stagnated, and proposed cuts make future funding uncertain. To further understand international financial flows for health, we examined international contributions from major donor countries. Our findings showed that the United States provided more development assistance for health than any other country, but it provided less than others relative to national population, government spending, and income. Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom stand out when the provision of health assistance is considered relative to these other factors. Seventeen of twenty-three countries did not reach a target that corresponds to an international goal. If all twenty-three countries had reached this goal, an additional $13.3 billion would have been available for global health in 2016. Systematic efforts are needed to encourage countries to meet these targets. Sustained health improvement in low- and middle-income countries will benefit greatly from ongoing international support.