4.7 Article

A systematic examination of international funding flows for Ebola virus and Zika virus outbreaks 2014-2019: donors, recipients and funding purposes

Journal

BMJ GLOBAL HEALTH
Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003923

Keywords

health economics; health policy; public health; systematic review; other study design

Funding

  1. Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics (J-IDEA)
  2. National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) [HPRU-2012-10080]
  3. UK Medical Research Council
  4. Department for International Development, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis [MR/R015600]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzed funding for the Ebola epidemic and Zika outbreak between 2014 and 2019, finding large discrepancies in reported amounts and purposes between different data sources. Despite inconsistencies, one of the few consistent findings was that the USA was the largest donor for both diseases.
Introduction There has been no systematic comparison of how the policy response to past infectious disease outbreaks and epidemics was funded. This study aims to collate and analyse funding for the Ebola epidemic and Zika outbreak between 2014 and 2019 in order to understand the shortcomings in funding reporting and suggest improvements. Methods Data were collected via a literature review and analysis of financial reporting databases, including both amounts donated and received. Funding information from three financial databases was analysed: Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation's Development Assistance for Health database, the Georgetown Infectious Disease Atlas and the United Nations Financial Tracking Service. A systematic literature search strategy was devised and applied to seven databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science and EconLit. Funding information was extracted from articles meeting the eligibility criteria and measures were taken to avoid double counting. Funding was collated, then amounts and purposes were compared within, and between, data sources. Results Large differences between funding reported by different data sources, and variations in format and methodology, made it difficult to arrive at precise estimates of funding amounts and purpose. Total disbursements reported by the databases ranged from $2.5 to $3.2 billion for Ebola and $150-$180 million for Zika. Total funding reported in the literature is greater than reported in databases, suggesting that databases may either miss funding, or that literature sources overreport. Databases and literature disagreed on the main purpose of funding for socioeconomic recovery versus outbreak response. One of the few consistent findings across data sources and diseases is that the USA was the largest donor. Conclusion Implementation of several recommendations would enable more effective mapping and deployment of outbreak funding for response activities relating to COVID-19 and future epidemics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available