↓ Skip to main content

Global fund financing to the 34 malaria-eliminating countries under the new funding model 2014–2017: an analysis of national allocations and regional grants

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Global fund financing to the 34 malaria-eliminating countries under the new funding model 2014–2017: an analysis of national allocations and regional grants
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1171-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brittany Zelman, Melissa Melgar, Erika Larson, Allison Phillips, Rima Shretta

Abstract

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (GFATM) has been the largest financial supporter of malaria since 2002. In 2011, the GFATM transitioned to a new funding model (NFM), which prioritizes grants to high burden, lower income countries. This shift raises concerns that some low endemic countries, dependent on GFATM financing to achieve their malaria elimination goals, would receive less funding under the NFM. This study aims to understand the projected increase or decrease in national and regional funding from the GFATM's NFM to the 34 malaria-eliminating countries. Average annual disbursements under the old funding model were compared to average annual national allocations for all eligible 34 malaria-eliminating countries for the period of 2014-2017. Regional grant funding to countries that are due to receive additional support was then included in the comparison and analysed. Estimated funding ranges for the countries under the NFM were calculated using the proposed national allocation plus the possible adjustments and additional funding. Finally, the minimum and maximum funding estimates were compared to average annual disbursements under the old funding model. A cumulative 31 % decrease in national financing from the GFATM is expected for the countries included in this analysis. Regional grants augment funding for almost half of the eliminating countries, and increase the cumulative percent change in GTFAM funding to 32 %, though proposed activities may not be funded directly through national malaria programmes. However, if countries receive the maximum possible funding, 46 % of the countries included in this analysis would receive less than they received under the previous funding model. Many malaria-eliminating countries have projected national declines in funding from the GFATM under the NFM. While regional grants enhance funding for eliminating countries, they may not be able to fill country-level funding gaps for local commodities and implementation. If the GFATM is able to nuance its allocation methodology to mitigate drastic funding declines for malaria investments in low transmission countries, the GFATM can ensure previous investments are not lost. By aligning with WHO's Global Technical Strategy for Malaria and investing in both high- and low-endemic countries, the Global Fund can tip the scale on a global health threat and contribute toward the goal of eventual malaria eradication.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 33%
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 24%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 9 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#517,887
of 15,920,653 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#62
of 4,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,119
of 267,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,920,653 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them