Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

The roles and involvement of global health partners in the health workforce: an exploratory analysis

Human Resources for Health volume 21, Article number: 41 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Development partners and global health initiatives are important actors in financing health systems in many countries. Despite the importance of the health workforce to the attainment of global health targets, the contribution of global health initiatives to health workforce strengthening is unclear. A 2020 milestone in the Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health is that “all bilateral and multilateral agencies have participated in efforts to strengthen health workforce assessments and information exchange in countries.” This milestone exists to encourage strategic investments in the health workforce that are evidence-based and incorporate a health labour market approach as an indication of policy comprehensiveness. To assess progress against this milestone, we reviewed the activities of 23 organizations (11 multilaterals and 12 bilaterals) which provide financial and technical assistance to countries for human resources for health, by mapping grey and peer-reviewed literature published between 2016 and 2021. The Global Strategy states that health workforce assessment involves a “deliberate strategy and accountability mechanisms on how specific programming contributes to health workforce capacity-building efforts” and avoids health labour market distortions. Health workforce investments are widely recognized as essential for the achievement of global health goals, and some partners identify health workforce as a key strategic focus in their policy and strategy documents. However, most do not identify it as a key focus, and few have a published specific policy or strategy to guide health workforce investments. Several partners include optional health workforce indicators in their monitoring and evaluation processes and/or require an impact assessment for issues such as the environment and gender equality. Very few, however, have embedded efforts in their governance mechanisms to strengthen health workforce assessments. On the other hand, most have participated in health workforce information exchange activities, including strengthening information systems and health labour market analyses. Although there is evidence of participation in efforts to strengthen health workforce assessments and (especially) information exchange, the achievement of this milestone of the Global Strategy requires more structured policies for the monitoring and evaluation of health workforce investments to optimize the value of these investments and contribute towards global and national health goals.

Peer Review reports

Background

Over the last two decades, the emergence of global health initiatives has changed the way that technical and financial support is provided for health. Their impact on health systems (including the health workforce)—and the need for methods and processes to monitor this impact—has often been overlooked [1,2,3]. Where the impact has been assessed, some positive impacts have been noted such as increased domestic production and improved retention [2]. However, concerns have been raised about a lack of coordination with national plans for health worker education, training and deployment, and labour market distortions due to, for example, differential pay scales [2, 3], which can weaken already fragile health systems. The health labour market is complex, with the result that health interventions do not always have the expected or desired effect [4]. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted this complexity and the importance of effective health workforce planning and management, including impact assessment [5].

The 2006 World Health Report drew attention to the magnitude of global health workforce challenges, and since its publication there has been increasing recognition of the importance of investing in the health workforce as part of efforts to achieve universal health coverage (UHC) [6]. In 2016, the World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted the Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health (HRH) [7], which sets out the policy agenda to ensure that the health workforce is adequate, well distributed and fit for purpose and thus allow for the attainment of UHC and the sustainable development goals. It calls on global health initiatives to support HRH capacity-building efforts by moving beyond disease-specific in-service training and incentives, and focusing on ensuring that investments in HRH are sustainable and do not inadvertently weaken health systems.

The Global Strategy on HRH established periodic reporting requirements for World Health Organization (WHO) Member States, facilitated by WHO. Milestone 4.3 states that by 2020, “All bilateral and multilateral agencies have participated in efforts to strengthen health workforce assessments and information exchange in countries”. This milestone exists to encourage strategic investments in the health workforce that are comprehensive and sustainable, and incorporate a health labour market approach to health workforce strengthening efforts.

The WHA resolution adopting the Global Strategy included three key actions relating to assessing the health workforce implications of health policy and programming: (1) partners should coordinate and align their investments in education, employment, health, gender, and labour in support of domestic financing aimed at addressing national health workforce priorities; (2) global health initiatives should ensure that all grants include an assessment of the health workforce implications, leverage national coordination and leadership, and contribute to efficient investment in and effective implementation of national health workforce policies; (3) an assessment should be made of the health workforce implications of technical resolutions brought before the WHA and WHO regional committees [8]. The Global Strategy states that health workforce assessment involves having a “deliberate strategy and accountability mechanisms on how specific programming contributes to health workforce capacity-building efforts”, and avoiding health labour market distortions.

The United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth (ComHEEG) provided fresh impetus for countries to implement the Global Strategy. Health workforce data strengthening is one of the four key objectives of the Global Strategy, and one of ComHEEG’s recommendations related to the strengthening of health workforce data, information and accountability by using harmonized metrics and methodologies [9]. The WHA made commitments to act on the recommendations of the ComHEEG report, including HRH information exchange [10, 11].

The objective of this study was to identify and map grey and peer-reviewed literature which gives information about bilateral or multilateral agencies’ participation in efforts to strengthen health workforce assessments (in particular impact assessments) and information exchange. In particular, there was a focus on availability of the following types of document:

  • policy and strategy documents which provide clear strategic direction for the organization’s HRH investments,

  • documents indicating the extent to which health workforce assessments and/or HRH indicators are part of an organization’s routine monitoring and evaluation activities, and

  • documents describing activities relating to improvements in HRH information exchange such as HRH information architecture and interoperability to enable better HRH advocacy, planning, policy-making, governance and accountability.

Methods

This study maps the policies, strategies and activities of the 23 partner organizations listed in Table 1, as they relate to health workforce assessments and information exchange. These partners were identified by the authors from the WHO Health Workforce Department as being those most active in terms of investments in health systems strengthening and HRH initiatives (in terms of known or estimated volume of investments in HRH through either bilateral or multilateral channels), playing an active role in HRH policy dialogue and coordination mechanisms at either international or national levels, and having established communication channels with WHO. Some of the multilateral partners provide only technical support, some provide only financial support, and some do both. Within the table, they are organized according to their main type of activity in relation to the health workforce. To validate and clarify where necessary the findings from the textual analysis, each organization was invited to complete a questionnaire or speak with the lead author. Six organizations (marked with an asterisk in Table 1) responded to this request, between September and November 2021.

Table 1 Partner organizations included in the study
Full size table

Our review focussed mostly on grey literature, because peer-reviewed literature on this type of activity is rare. Notwithstanding, a rapid and selective review of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted in addition.

The grey literature search was performed using the Google search engine, on various dates in the period 24 May 2021 to 22 June 2021 inclusive. A total of 24 searches was performed. Search terms included the partner organization’s name plus terms such as: “human resources for health”, “policy”, “technical guidance”, “assessment” and “data exchange” (see Annex for full details). These searches yielded hundreds of thousands of results. For each search, the first 50 results were reviewed, excluding any sponsored or promoted web pages, at which point the results became mostly duplicates or irrelevant. The reviewer clicked on the URL and briefly assessed the relevance of the piece to the objectives of this study. The URLs of items thought to be definitely or potentially relevant were saved for later full review. During the full review, if the item referred to other relevant items or the research team became aware of the publication of relevant new items, these were added to the review (“snowballing”) during the period July to December 2021.

The peer-reviewed literature search was conducted using the PubMed search engine. Search terms included the partner organization’s name plus the MeSH major topics “health workforce”, “staff development”, “workload”, “personnel staffing and scheduling”, plus terms such as “policy”, “measurement” and “impact assessment”(see Additional file1: Annex for full details). The first search yielded 163 articles, each of which was subjected to a title and abstract review to ascertain whether or not it met the inclusion criteria described below. The second search yielded 7 articles of which one was a duplicate, so 6 went forward for title and abstract review.

One researcher performed the initial review of the Google search results and the title and abstract review of peer-reviewed literature, to assess whether or not each item met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were (a) that the item was published after November 2016 (or it was published before this date but is the most recent document of its type and reflects current practice), (b) the item was written in English, (c) the item related to the activities of one or more of the organizations listed in Table 1 and (d) the item referred to:

  • The partner organization’s policy or strategy on investments or programming which relate to HRH*, or

  • The partner organization’s approach to assessment of HRH* impacts, or

  • Ad hoc impact assessments on HRH* or other topics, even if no organizational policy or strategy exists, or

  • The partner organization’s approach to HRH* information exchange between data holders and/or data sources, or

  • HRH* information exchange within countries or within regions, whether from the perspective of a provider or a recipient of technical and/or financial support.

*any aspect of HRH, including: data or information systems, supply (e.g. headcount, density, domestic production, migration, attrition, retention), demand (consumer and economic), need, accessibility, quality, working conditions (e.g. motivation, working environment, remuneration), management/regulation (e.g. supervision, productivity, performance, efficiency, scope of practice).

Of the 1,369 screened items, 87 went forward for full text review. The search of partner websites yielded a further 66 items, and snowballing a further 63. In total, therefore, 216 items were fully reviewed, as summarized in Fig. 1. Of these, 31 were rejected after full review due to not meeting the inclusion criteria. This left 185 that were included in this review.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Search results

Full size image

The included items were reviewed by one researcher, who recorded key pieces of information about each item in an extraction grid, including: document type, partner organization(s) involved, whether the item included information about the organization’s participation in health workforce assessments and/or information exchange (and if so what information was included and whether the document was based on a specific conceptual framework such as a labour market framework). Items were categorized according to the document types listed in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, which were developed a priori by the authors.

Findings

Policies and strategies to guide HRH investments

Effective governance and accountability are more easily achieved with the availability of published policy and strategy documents to guide activities and decisions, which make clear the organization’s strategic priorities. It would be reasonable to expect organizations which are active in the sphere of HRH to provide clear strategic direction on HRH investments in their policies and strategies. This makes it easier to implement policy at a country level, and fosters accountability for the impact of the organization’s activities. Further, the application of a health labour market logic to the development of relevant policy/strategy documents can help organizations to better understand the factors affecting workforce supply and demand at national, regional and global levels, and thus ensure that these documents are comprehensive and relevant [12].

For most partner organizations, the review found at least one policy or strategy document designed to guide the organization’s decisions, including about global health activities. These tend to set out the organization’s overarching vision, values and guiding principles in broad terms. In some cases they specify priority areas for investment, e.g. specific countries, diseases, communities. For about half of the organizations, the review located documents designed to guide decisions about health system strengthening (including HRH). Some of these (e.g. Gavi, Global Fund, UNICEF, UK) explicitly prioritize certain types of HRH investments, in some cases discouraging—but not necessarily ruling out—the payment of recurrent costs such as health worker salaries.

There is widespread recognition among all types of partners that HRH investments are essential for the achievement of global health goals, e.g. Global Fund [13], WHO [7], Japan [14], UK [15], USA [16]. Despite this recognition, policy or strategy documents specifically relating to HRH investments were found for just five organizations: four multilaterals and one bilateral (Table 2). The Global Fund, UNICEF, WHO and USA policy/strategy documents which guide decisions about investments in HRH (bottom row of Table 2), explicitly or implicitly acknowledge the importance of considering investments within a health labour market framework.

Table 2 Existence of published documents guiding global health investment decisions
Full size table

Participation in efforts to strengthen health workforce assessments

A health workforce assessment is a process that prepares evidence for decision-makers on strengths, weaknesses, gaps and stakeholders. A workforce assessment may include an “impact assessment”, i.e. an assessment of the potential outcomes and impacts of initiatives and investments, as they relate to the health workforce. When conducted in advance of implementation, health workforce impact assessments represent an attempt to provide a coherent and transparent analysis of the foreseeable effects of a proposed policy or intervention, and thus provide an opportunity to maximize the potential benefits and minimize or offset the potential risks [49].

Health workforce assessments should be considered as part of an organization’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities. The review located a number of documents which described partner organizations’ approach to the M&E of their global health activities, and these are summarized in Table 3. Most partner organizations have published an evaluation policy or strategy document, in recognition of the importance of taking a structured approach to evaluation, and in some cases acknowledging that this has been overlooked in the past. Features of these policy documents which are common to all of the examples located were: a description of how evaluation supports accountability, learning and improvement, and a description of the guiding principles for that organization’s evaluation efforts, such as: transparency, accountability, methodological rigour, and proportionality. Some also specify the types of evaluation which are appropriate for that organization and/or the types of methods to be used. Several explicitly mention the challenges of attributing observed change to the activities of the organization.

Table 3 Existence of published documents relating to monitoring and evaluation of global health activities generally, and health workforce assessments specifically
Full size table

Table 3 also shows that several multilaterals (but no bilaterals) have published guidance for monitoring HRH indicators as part of M&E efforts. Most of these take a broad health and/or health systems approach, with an HRH component. WHO is the only partner organization to state that it has a policy to conduct health workforce impact assessments as a matter of routine. WHO, Global Fund, and USA have published guidance and/or tools on conducting health workforce impact assessments, all of which are designed around a health labour market framework.

Generally, if one of the stated objectives of an investment is to affect HRH, there is a requirement to monitor and evaluate progress against that objective. Several evaluations of HRH investments were found in this review, e.g. by EIB [81], Global Fund [82], UNFPA [83], UNICEF [84, 85], and Australia [86].Footnote 1 However, if the investment in HRH is part of a broader effort to strengthen health systems or improve health outcomes, M&E efforts tend not to have an explicit focus on HRH.

Where guidance is available on HRH monitoring indicators, it tends to consider outcome and coverage indicators, rather than impacts or implications. Coverage indicators often focus on health worker education and training (e.g. numbers trained, alignment of education curricula with global standards, education programme completion rates), management and supervision (e.g. numbers receiving supportive supervision visits). Outcome indicators often focus on health worker availability (graduate absorption rates, health facility staffing levels and vacancy rates, health worker density and distribution). In addition, the Global Fund has some indicators relating to HRH policy development, the existence of HRH information systems and the conducting of health labour market assessments. Gavi has an indicator to measure the rate at which Gavi-funded positions are transferred into the national health system.

The review found very little acknowledgement among partners of the importance of assessing the indirect or unintended impacts of their activities on the health workforce, and even fewer examples of participation in efforts to strengthen health workforce impact assessments. The few examples were:

  • WHO’s development of an ex ante HRH impact assessment tool, which uses a health labour market framework as its basis [49];

  • Global Fund’s guidance on which types of HRH investment will be funded, which includes a recommendation (but not a requirement) for a ‘light-touch’ HRH impact assessment at the application stage [46];

  • OECD’s work on skills assessment as a method of evaluating the effectiveness of health workforce policies [87, 88].

Although not an impact assessment tool per se, the EIB’s due diligence and monitoring cycle includes a requirement to adhere to its social standards including labour standards and public health [89].

Several partners have embraced the concept of assessing the impact of their activities, and a few could be said to have mainstreamed it as a principle across some or all of their activities, e.g. EIB [90], OECD [91], Germany [92], and USA [93]. Gavi notes that impact assessment can be useful when considering the extent to which observed outcomes and impact can be attributed to the activities of an organization [53]. Table 4 summarizes the types of impact assessment required or recommended by different partners. These results indicate that it is rare for health workforce impact assessments to be required or recommended. Only WHO requires this for technical resolutions and strategies brought before the WHA and WHO Regional Committees [94], and the Global Fund suggests that it might sometimes be helpful when preparing a funding application [46].

Table 4 Types of impact assessment required or recommended by partner organizations
Full size table

Participation in efforts to strengthen information exchange

Typically, HRH data are held by numerous organizations using a variety of systems and processes, which can make it difficult to take a broad, labour market approach to policy- and decision-making. The Global Strategy on HRH notes that improvements in HRH information architecture and interoperability can address this challenge and thus enable better advocacy, planning, policy-making, governance and accountability [7].

This review found evidence that most partner organizations had participated in efforts to strengthen HRH information exchange, as part of their own activities and/or by providing financial or technical support to other organizations’ activities. The most common “own activity” was being a member of a network whose work included HRH information exchange—nearly all partner organizations did this, regardless of whether the support they provide for the health workforce role is primarily financial or primarily technical. Other “own activities” mostly involved partners whose main role was technical support. These included the publication of analysis of HRH data at a global or regional level, the development or updating of technical guidance or tools, and the development or updating of systems to facilitate data exchange.

The review also located examples of partners providing support to other actors for information exchange activities including: health workforce observatories/HRH planning units, HRH information systems, and supporting the analysis of HRH data for planning purposes at country level (Table 5). The first two types of activity mainly involved financial support, and the third type mainly involved technical support.

Table 5 Participation in efforts to strengthen information exchange
Full size table

Descriptions and examples of each type of information exchange activity are shown below.

Membership of a network whose work includes HRH information exchange

Networks such as the Global Health Workforce Network and the OECD/WHO/International Labour Organization ‘Working 4 Health’ programme have brought partner organizations together with a view to improving harmonization and efficiency. The Global Health Workforce Network’s activities included the development and promotion of systems and tools for harmonization of indicators, data collation and reporting systems and tools [132]. The ‘Working 4 Health’ programme had a specific action to institute an interagency data exchange mechanism [129].

Contribution to the publication of analysis of HRH data at a global or regional level

Partner organizations have identified the need for publications to highlight global or regional patterns and gaps in the available data and evidence which can support policy dialogue. For example, WHO has published analysis including: the State of the World’s Nursing 2020 report [142], gender issues affecting health workers [143], and the impact of COVID-19 on health workers [144]. Similarly, UNFPA led the third State of the World’s Midwifery 2021 report, including data on midwives and other health workers [137]. UNFPA has also published regional midwifery workforce reports [138,139,140]. Other publications have emerged as a result of governing bodies’ resolutions, e.g. WHO’s monitoring of the effectiveness of the Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel [141].

Development or updating of technical guidance or tools for HRH information exchange

Partners have developed and shared good practice guidance to improve the quality of HRH information systems, and tools to support the use of HRH data for planning and forecasting. For example, the USA funded the production of standards and best practices for health information systems, including a specific HRH module [156], and the development of an HRH Action Framework with a section on information systems [157].

Other partner activities included tools to reduce the reporting burden on countries, e.g. the OECD/Eurostat/WHO European Region Joint Questionnaire collects data from multiple countries on HRH indicators, including international mobility of health workers [130, 131].

Development or updating of a system or platform to facilitate HRH information exchange

Several partners have contributed to efforts to make global and regional reporting on HRH data easier, and to base reporting on international standards. For example, WHO led the development and progressive implementation of National Health Workforce Accounts (NHWA). NHWA is designed to: support health workforce monitoring through a system strengthening approach, avoid duplication of effort, and support the development of global and regional health workforce reports. NHWA data are publicly accessible via its data portal [151].

OECD advises member countries on HRH planning and management, including the collation and publication of key HRH statistics to enable cross-country comparison [136, 159, 160], and EC publishes education statistics, including data on education of health workers [189].

Establishment or strengthening of an organization or department with a focus on HRH, e.g. a health workforce observatory or HRH planning unit

In recognition of the need in some countries to build capacity for using HRH data effectively for planning and forecasting, partners have supported the establishment or strengthening of HRH observatories and planning units within ministries of health. For example, the Global Fund funded positions in an HRH planning unit in Liberia [46], and the USA has supported the strengthening of HRH observatories in countries including Ghana and Jordan [169, 170].

Establishment or strengthening of HRH information systems or data platforms

Activities in this category include attempts to share good practice and ensure a multi-sectoral approach to health and health systems. For example, BMGF provided financial support to the WHO UHC compendium—a global repository of interventions for UHC, including defining workforce requirements for health interventions [190]. They also include efforts to improve the coverage and interoperability of HRH information systems (HRHIS). For example, BMGF supported a multi-country assessment of HRHIS to identify common challenges and opportunities for improvement [176]. Canada has funded HRHIS strengthening in Bangladesh [177]; the UK in countries including the Democratic Republic of Congo [178] and Nepal [179], and the USA in countries including Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia [182, 183]. The USA funds the HRH2030 programme, the activities of which include improving HRHIS [180]. HRH2030 has supported technical assistance for NHWA in Ethiopia, Indonesia and the Philippines [181].

Supporting the analysis of HRH data for planning purposes at country level, e.g. health labour market analysis or HRH needs assessments

In countries with gaps in national capacity for HRH data collection, collation and analysis, partners have provided technical support. For example, The Global Fund has supported HRH inventories in Eswatini and Lesotho and a health workforce gap analysis in Sierra Leone [46]. It also supported technical assistance to Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Niger, and Nigeria to improve the use of HRH data for policy and decision-making [171] The World Bank supports countries to conduct data collection and analysis to inform HRH policy and decision-making [158]. WHO has provided technical assistance for health labour market analyses for individual countries including: Bangladesh [185], India [186], and Sri Lanka [187], the findings of which have informed policy dialogue and investment decisions by national governments other development partners.

Discussion

This study found that it is not standard practice for partner organizations to include a requirement or recommendation to conduct health workforce assessments as a matter of routine, nor to recommend assessment of the impact of their activities. However, this study did locate evidence that a considerable number of partner organizations have embraced the concept of assessing the impact of their activities on other areas. Where partners require or recommend a specific type of impact assessment, it is usually in an area relating to one of their areas of strategic focus, e.g. Canada has a strategic focus on gender equality and therefore requires a gender equality assessment. This suggests that efforts to mainstream health workforce impact assessments will be more successful within partner organizations which have (and publicly acknowledge) a specific strategic focus on HRH. This underlines the importance of having policy or strategy documents which acknowledge that HRH is a strategic focus and which guide decisions about HRH activities and investments.

Despite the widespread acknowledgement of the importance of HRH for global health initiatives and the recent increase in development assistance for the health workforce [191], and despite some external commentators calling for global health partners to focus more on HRH issues [192,193,194], we found few examples of specific guidance on HRH investments. Even among partners who acknowledge that HRH are a vital investment, there can be a lack of specificity about their own HRH roles and responsibilities, which can lead to confusion when organizing technical cooperation at country level [195]. Some partners have taken action in response to this issue, e.g. GFF and UNICEF have recently included specific reference to their approach to HRH investments for the first time in their policy documents [38, 195, 196]. All organizations involved in global health initiatives should consider whether their current policy and strategy documents contain sufficient detail to effectively guide their activities as they relate to the health workforce.

The openness of many partner organizations to the principle of impact assessment may represent an opportunity to expand this into HRH, e.g. by adding an HRH module to an existing M&E framework and/or impact assessment tool. Calls for the mainstreaming of impact assessments have been heard since 2002 [197]. In some cases, lack of action may be at least partly due to gaps in M&E capacity [198]. In others, it may stem from a lack of recognition that effective HRH leadership requires tools that support understanding of complex situations, especially in challenging times such as global pandemics [5]. We found only a few examples of efforts to strengthen health workforce impact assessments, of which only the Global Fund and WHO tools are based on an established labour market framework.

This study found that most of the focus organizations have participated actively in HRH data exchange activities. This indicates a high level of recognition that harmonization of the collection, collation and use of HRH data is vital for better advocacy, planning, policy-making, governance, accountability, and has the potential to reduce the reporting burden on countries. The results of these efforts can be seen in many of the publications referenced in this paper, and some more recent publications [199], but even the more recent global reports on the health workforce include caveats about the availability and quality of data from many countries [137, 142]. This indicates the need for additional efforts on HRH information exchange as well as on health workforce assessment.

This study was subject to a number of limitations. First, the searches were conducted in English, so will have missed relevant documents published in other languages. Second, although structured, the search was not fully systematic, so could have overlooked relevant documents. Third, it is possible that relevant documents exist internally within organizations but are not publicly available, and therefore will not have been included in this review.

The shortcomings identified in this study indicate the need for additional action from partner organizations. Partners whose main role is the provision of funding support should adapt their policies to allow greater, more predictable, sustainable investment in the health workforce. In countries where the macroeconomic situation and health labour market conditions warrant it, this means shifting the focus away from short-term in-service training and disease-specific incentives to allow investments in pre-service education and jobs for general service staff [7]. Financing the creation of new jobs in the health sector, with decent working conditions, should be recognized as a productive investment, with potential returns for health, employment, economic growth and the economic empowerment of women and youth [9].

Consideration should also be given to reorienting existing multilateral and bilateral funding facilities to support international investment in health systems (including HRH) which adhere to the principles of aid effectiveness and align with other relevant architecture at global and national levels. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that the capacity exists to increase resource mobilization for HRH, but that opportunities remain for greater alignment of this support to national HRH priorities and mechanisms [191]. Regional partners can play an important advocacy role to help generate the political will to support HRH investments. Mechanisms should be established to allow reliable and consistent monitoring of HRH investment.

Partners whose main role is to provide technical support should establish governance mechanisms to ensure that their planned interventions include an assessment of health workforce implications and consider sustainability by addressing the underlying causes of HRH shortages [49].

Conclusions

Although there is evidence of participation in efforts to strengthen health workforce assessments and (especially) information exchange, the achievement of the Global Strategy’s fourth strategic objective requires more structured policies for the monitoring and evaluation of health workforce investments to optimize the value of these investments and contribute towards achieving global and national health goals.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. This is almost certainly not an exhaustive list: some partner organizations’ websites included repositories of thousands of evaluation reports and in the time available it was not possible to look at every one of them. It was sometimes possible to search for specific types of report using keywords, but not always.

Abbreviations

ADB:

Asian Development Bank

AfDB:

African Development Bank

BMGF:

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

ComHEEG:

United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth

EC:

European Commission

EIB:

European Investment Bank

GFF:

Global Financing Facility

HRH:

Human resources for health

HRHIS:

Human resources for health information system

M&E:

Monitoring and evaluation

NHWA:

National Health Workforce Accounts

OECD:

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PAHO:

Pan-American Health Organization

UHC:

Universal health coverage

UK:

United Kingdom

UNFPA:

United Nations Population Fund

UNICEF:

United Nations Children’s Fund

USA:

United States of America

WHA:

World Health Assembly

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. World Health Organization. Maximizing Positive Synergies Collaborative G, Samb B, Evans T, Dybul M, Atun R, Moatti JP, et al. An assessment of interactions between global health initiatives and country health systems. Lancet. 2009;373(9681):2137–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vujicic M, Weber SE, Nikolic IA, Atun R, Kumar R. An analysis of GAVI, the Global Fund and World Bank support for human resources for health in developing countries. Health Policy Plan. 2012;27(8):649–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bowser D, Sparkes SP, Mitchell A, Bossert TJ, Barnighausen T, Gedik G, et al. Global Fund investments in human resources for health: innovation and missed opportunities for health systems strengthening. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29(8):986–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McPake B, Maeda A, Araujo EC, Lemiere C, El Maghraby A, Cometto G. Why do health labour market forces matter? Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(11):841–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ferrinho P, Lehman U, Kovacs E, Dal Poz M. Relevant HRH leadership during public health emergencies. Hum Resour Health. 2022;20(1):28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. World Health Organization. Working together for health: the world health report 2006. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.

  7. World Health Organization. Global strategy on human resources for health: workforce 2030. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.

  8. World Health Assembly. Resolution 69.19. Global strategy on human resources for health: workforce 2030. 2016. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA69/A69_R19-en.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2022.

  9. High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth. Working for health and growth: investing in the health workforce. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.

  10. World Health Organization. Human resources for health and implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations’ High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth: report by the Secretariat to the Seventieth World Health Assembly. 2017. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA70/A70_18-en.pdf?ua=1&ua=1. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  11. World Health Organization. Seventy-second World Health Assembly: resolutions and decisions annexes. 2019. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA72-REC1/A72_2019_REC1-en.pdf. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  12. Sousa A, Scheffler RM, Nyoni J, Boerma T. A comprehensive health labour market framework for universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(11):892–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Global Fund Strategy 2017–2022. 2021. https://www.theglobalfund.org/en/strategy/. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  14. Japan International Cooperation Agency. Human resource development: building a resilient and inclusive society where lives are protected. 2020. https://www.jica.go.jp/english/publications/reports/annual/2020/c8h0vm0000fc7q2b-att/2020_16.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  15. United Kingdom Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. FCDO position paper: health systems strengthening for global health security and universal health coverage. 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039209/Health-Systems-Strengthening-Position-Paper.pdf. Accessed 5 January 2022.

  16. United States Agency for International Development. Enabling a health workforce. 2020. https://www.usaid.gov/global-health/health-systems-innovation/health-systems/enabling-health-workforce. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  17. Asian Development Bank. Strategy 2030: achieving a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and the Pacific. 2018. https://www.adb.org/documents/strategy-2030-prosperous-inclusive-resilient-sustainable-asia-pacific. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  18. African Development Bank Group. At the Center of Africa’s Transformation: Strategy for 2013–2022. 2021. https://www.afdb.org/en/about-us/mission-strategy/afdbs-strategy. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  19. Gavi. Strategy Phase V (2021–2025). 2020. https://www.gavi.org/our-alliance/strategy/phase-5-2021-2025. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  20. Global Financing Facility. Protecting, promoting and accelerating health gains for women, children and adolescents: Global Financing Facility 2021–2025 strategy. Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The Global Financing Facility; 2020. https://www.globalfinancingfacility.org/gff-strategy-2021-2025-protecting-promoting-and-accelerating-health-gains-women-children-and. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  21. United Nations Population Fund. Strategic Plan 2018–2021. 2021. https://www.unfpa.org/strategic-plan-2018-2021. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  22. United Nations Children's Fund. Strategy for health 2016–2030. New York: UNICEF; 2016. https://www.unicef.org/media/58166/file. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  23. World Health Organization. About WHO: what we do. 2021. https://www.who.int/about/what-we-do. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  24. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Global delivery programs. 2021. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-work/programs/global-development/global-delivery-programs. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  25. European Commission. Policy coherence for development. 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/policy-coherence-development_en. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  26. European Commission. Planning and prioritising development aid: overview of planning process, how priorities are decided, policy integration, financing. 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-development-cooperation-fundamental-rights/human-rights-non-eu-countries/how-we-provide-aid/planning-and-prioritising-development-aid_en. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  27. Global Affairs Canada. Report to Parliament on the Government of Canada’s international assistance 2018–2019. 2020. https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/publications/odaaa-lrmado/report-rapport-18-19.aspx?lang=eng. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  28. Government of Canada. Guidance on eligible costs for development initiatives. 2018. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/funding-financement/eligible_costs_guidance-directives_cout_admissibles.aspx?lang=eng. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  29. The State Council The People’s Republic of China. China’s foreign aid. 2014. http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2014/08/23/content_281474982986592.htm. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  30. Agence Français de Developpment. Health and social protection—2019 activity report. 2020. https://www.afd.fr/en/ressources/health-and-social-protection-2019-activity-report. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  31. Agence Français de Developpment. Development aid: what’s it all about? 2021. https://www.afd.fr/en/development-aid-whats-it-all-about. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  32. Agence Français de Developpment. Our priorities. 2021. https://www.afd.fr/en/our-priorities. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  33. Japan International Cooperation Agency. Health: JICA activities. 2021. https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/thematic_issues/health/activity.html. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  34. Japan International Cooperation Agency. JICA’s strategy. 2020. https://www.jica.go.jp/english/publications/reports/annual/2020/c8h0vm0000fc7q2b-att/2020_02.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  35. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. How Norway works with global health. 2021. https://www.norad.no/en/front/thematic-areas/global-health/how-norway-works-with-global-health/. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  36. United States Agency for International Development/United States Department of State. Joint strategic plan FY 2018–2022. 2018. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/JSP_FY_2018_-_2022_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  37. Gavi. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance—health system and immunisation strengthening (HSIS) support framework. 2021. https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/document/gavi-health-system-and-immunisation-strengthening-support-frameworkpdf.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  38. Cordaid, Wemos. Strengthening health systems strengthening: an analysis of coordination among the Global Fund, the Global Financing Facility and Gavi (3Gs). 2021. https://www.cordaid.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2021/03/Cordaid-and-Wemos_Strengthening-Health-Systems-Strengthening_March-2021.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  39. Global Financing Facility. Financing model. 2021. https://www.globalfinancingfacility.org/financing-model. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  40. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria. Building resilient and sustainable systems for health (RSSH): information note. 2019. https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/4759/core_resilientsustainablesystemsforhealth_infonote_en.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  41. United Nations Children's Fund. The UNICEF health systems strengthening approach. New York: UNICEF; 2016.

  42. World Health Organization. Everybody’s business: strengthening health systems to improve health outcomes; WHO’s framework for action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.

  43. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Global delivery programs: our strategy. 2021. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-work/programs/global-development/global-delivery-programs. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  44. United States Agency for International Development. USAID's vision for health systems strengthening. 2021. https://www.usaid.gov/global-health/health-systems-innovation/health-systems/Vision-HSS-2030. Accessed 6 Dec 2021.

  45. Gavi. Supporting government human resources capacity through funding salaries, top ups, incentives, and related cost recovery mechanisms: information for countries eligible for Gavi support. 2019. https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/document/guidance-on-supporting-countries--hr-capacitypdf.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  46. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria. Technical brief: strategic support for human resources for health. 2019. https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/8832/core_humanresourcesforhealth_technicalbrief_en.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  47. United Nations Children's Fund. Investing in health workers to save maternal and newborn lives: briefing note. 2020. https://www.unicef.org/media/71711/file/Investing%20in%20Health%20Workers%20to%20Save%20Lives%202020.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  48. United States Agency for International Development. Human resources for health: optimizing the health workforce for HIV service delivery. 2021. https://www.usaid.gov/global-health/health-areas/hiv-and-aids/technical-areas/human-resources-health. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  49. Nove A, Cometto G, Campbell J. Assessing the health workforce implications of health policy and programming: how a review of grey literature informed the development of a new impact assessment tool. Human Resour Health. 2017;15(1):79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. European Investment Bank. Review and evaluation process: guiding principles. 2021. https://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/eib_review_and_evaluation_process_en.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  51. European Investment Bank. The EIB Group operational plan 2021. 2021. https://www.eib.org/en/publications/operational-plan-2021. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  52. European Investment Bank. Measuring the EIB Group’s impact: methods and studies. 2021. https://www.eib.org/en/publications/measuring-the-eib-groups-impact-methods-and-studies.htm. Accessed 9 Dec 2021.

  53. Gavi. Gavi Alliance Evaluation Policy: Version 4.0. 2019. https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/document/corporate-policies/Gavi%20Evaluation%20policy.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  54. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria. Monitoring & evaluation framework. 2021. https://www.theglobalfund.org/en/monitoring-evaluation/framework/. Accessed 8 July 2021.

  55. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria. Modular framework handbook and core set of indicators. 2019. https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/4309/fundingmodel_modularframework_handbook_en.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  56. World Bank Group. Independent Evaluation Group mandate. 2018. https://ppfdocuments.azureedge.net/36899bd9-ef89-446c-a464-06a09576fba7.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  57. United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA evaluation strategy (2018–2021). 2019. https://www.unfpa.org/admin-resource/unfpa-evaluation-strategy-2018-2021. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  58. United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA evaluation policy 2019. 2019. https://www.unfpa.org/admin-resource/unfpa-evaluation-policy-2019.

  59. United Nations Children's Fund. Revised evaluation policy of UNICEF. 2018. https://www.unicef.org/media/54816/file. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  60. World Health Organization. Evaluation policy. 2018. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB143/B143(9)-en.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2021.

  61. Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Development evaluation policy. 2021. https://www.dfat.gov.au/development/performance-assessment/development-evaluation/development-evaluation-policy. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  62. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Evaluation policy. 2021. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/policies-and-resources/evaluation-policy. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  63. GIZ Evaluation Unit. Knowing what works: GIZ’s evaluation policy. 2018. https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/GIZ_EVAL_EN_evaluation%20policy.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2021.

  64. GIZ. Evaluation. 2021. https://www.giz.de/en/aboutgiz/monitoring_and_evaluation.html. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  65. Japan International Cooperation Agency. Project evaluation. 2020. https://www.jica.go.jp/english/publications/reports/annual/2020/c8h0vm0000fc7q2b-att/2020_33.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  66. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. Instructions for evaluation activities in Norway’s aid administration. 2015. https://www.norad.no/globalassets/filer-2015/evaluering/evaluation-instructions-from-23.-november-2015.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  67. Department for International Development. Smart rules: better programme delivery. 2019. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Smart-Rules-External-Oct19.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  68. United States Agency for International Development. Evaluation. 2021. https://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/progress-data/evaluations. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  69. Aqil A, Silvestre E, Hotchkiss D, Maniscalco L. Health systems strengthening—monitoring, evaluation, and learning guide. MEASURE Evaluation; 2017. https://www.measureevaluation.org/resources/publications/tr-17-167c.html. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  70. United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA strategic plan, 2018–2021: Annex 1. Integrated results and resources framework. 2018. https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/admin-resource/UNFPA%20strategic%20plan,%202018-2021.%20Annex%201%20-%20Integrated%20results%20and%20resources%20framework%20-%20FINAL%20-%20EN%20(1).pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  71. Gavi. Guidance for Gavi grant performance frameworks. 2019. https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/document/guidance-for-gavi-grant-performance-frameworkspdf.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  72. Gavi. HSIS metrics catalogue. 2021. https://www.gavi.org/news/document-library/hsis-metrics-catalogue Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  73. Global Financing Facility. Results Monitoring. 2017. https://www.globalfinancingfacility.org/results-monitoring. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  74. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute. Review of health systems strengthening (HSS) support. 2019. https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/document/review-of-gavi%25e2%2580%2599s-health-systems-strengthening-%28hss%29-support-2019pdf.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  75. Araujo E, Maeda A. How to recruit and retain health workers in rural and remote areas in developing countries: a guidance note. The World Bank; 2013. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/273821468154769065/pdf/785060WP0HRHDC00Box377346B00PUBLIC0.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  76. World Health Organization. WHO guideline on health policy and system support to optimize community health worker programmes. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/275474/9789241550369-eng.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  77. Global Health Workforce Alliance. Tools and guidelines. 2021. https://www.who.int/workforcealliance/knowledge/guidelines/en/. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  78. Global Health Workforce Alliance. Human resources for health policy impact assessment tool (PIAT)—guidance notes. 2012. https://www.who.int/workforcealliance/knowledge/toolkit/5/en/. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  79. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Human resources for health inventory tool to assess donor-supported HIV workers. 2019. https://www.pepfarsolutions.org/resourcesandtools-2/2019/7/1/human-resources-for-health-inventory-tool-to-assess-donor-supported-hiv-workers. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  80. United States Agency for International Development. Explore USAID’s health system assessment approach v3.0. 2018. https://www.hfgproject.org/the-health-system-assessment-approach-a-how-to-manual/. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  81. Fenton N, Cali C. What’s the impact of an impact investment? European Investment Bank; 2020. https://www.eib.org/en/stories/impact-investment-in-senegal. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  82. Cancedda C, Cotton P, Shema J, Rulisa S, Riviello R, Adams LV, et al. Health professional training and capacity strengthening through international academic partnerships: the first five years of the Human Resources for Health Program in Rwanda. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(11):1024–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. United Nations Population Fund. Evaluation database: document list. 2021. https://web2.unfpa.org/public/about/oversight/evaluations/documentList.unfpajsessionid=50BFAE3F10C969020A85A92D669AE062. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  84. Dussault G, Codjia L, Zurn P, Ridde V. Investing in human resources for health in French-speaking Africa: the contribution of the Muskoka project. Sante Publique. 2018;S1(Hs):9–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Kasonde M, Steele P. The people factor: an analysis of the human resources landscape for immunization supply chain management. Vaccine. 2017;35(17):2134–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Strengthening Pacific Health Systems: Evaluating ten years of Australia's support. 2020. https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/pacific-health-evaluation.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  87. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Feasibility study on health workforce skills assessment: supporting health workers achieve person-centred care. 2018. https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Feasibility-Study-On-Health-Workforce-Skills-Assessment-Feb2018.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  88. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Skills for the future health workforce: preparing health professionals for people-centred care. 2021. https://www.oecd.org/health/skills-for-the-future-health-workforce-68fb5f08-en.htm. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  89. European Investment Bank Group. Environmental and social standards. 2018. https://www.eib.org/en/publications/environmental-and-social-standards-overview.htm. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  90. European Investment Bank. EIB at the 2021 International Association for Impact Assessment annual conference. 2021. https://www.eib.org/en/events/eib-at-2021-iaia-annual-conference. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  91. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Search results. 2021. https://www.oecd.org/general/searchresults/?q=impact%20assessment&cx=012432601748511391518:xzeadub0b0a&cof=FORID:11&ie=UTF-8. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  92. GIZ. Evaluation report 2020: using knowledge. 2020. https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2021_en_GIZ-Evaluation%20report%202020_USING%20KNOWLEDGE_.pdf. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  93. United States Agency for International Development. Impact evaluation decision. 2021. https://www.usaid.gov/project-starter/program-cycle/project-design/project-evaluation-overview/impact-evaluation-decision. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  94. World Health Organization. Health workforce impact assessments. 2019. https://www.who.int/teams/health-workforce/impact-assessments. Accessed 9 Dec 2021.

  95. European Investment Bank. Search: impact assessment. 2021. https://www.eib.org/en/search.htm?q=impact+assessment&sortColumn=relevant&sortDir=desc&pageNumber=0&itemPerPage=10&pageable=true&language=EN&defaultLanguage=EN&orContent=true&orPageType=true. Accessed 18 June 2021.

  96. World Bank Group. Risk stress test tool. 2021. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/brief/risk-stress-test-tool. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  97. World Health Organization. Impact assessment. 2021. https://www.who.int/heli/impacts/en/. Accessed 25 March 2022.

  98. Agence Français de Developpment. Environmental and social risk management policy for AFD-funded operations. 2017. https://www.afd.fr/en/ressources/environmental-and-social-risk-management-policy-afd-funded-operations. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  99. GIZ. Your search result. 2021. https://www.giz.de/en/html/searchresult.html?query=impact+assessment&doc-types=&hits=10. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  100. Japan International Cooperation Agency. Environmental and social considerations: JICA’s new guidelines for environmental and social considerations made public. 2010. https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/social_environmental/guideline/index.html. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  101. Saudi Fund for Development. Guidelines for development lending. 2021. https://www-sfd-gov-sa.translate.goog/ar/page/aldlyl-alarshady-llaqrad-altnmwy?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  102. Agence Français de Developpment. The sustainable development analysis: raising questions and integrating project sustainable-development issues upstream. 2018. https://www.afd.fr/en/ressources/sustainable-development-analysis?origin=/en/rechercher?query=impact%2Bassessment&size=20&sort=_score%2Cdesc&filter%5B0%5D=source_k%3Dafd&facetOptions%5B0%5D=country_k%2Csize%2C200&facetOptions%5B1%5D=thematic_k%2Csize%2C999&facetOptions%5B2%5D=publication_date_month%2Csize%2C999&type=1. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  103. Agence Français de Developpment. Methodology guide to the 'sustainable development opinion’ mechanism. 2017. https://www.afd.fr/en/ressources/methodology-guide-sustainable-development-opinion-mechanism. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  104. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. Assessment of sustainability elements/key risk factors: practical guide. 2010. https://www.norad.no/en/toolspublications/publications/2009/assessment-of-sustainability-elementskey-risk-factors--practical-guide/. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  105. African Development Bank Group. The Bank Group results measurement framework 2016–2025: delivering the High 5s, increasing the Bank's impact on development. 2017. https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-Documents/Final_-_RMF_-__Rev.2_Final_.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  106. African Development Bank Group. Evaluation of the ex-ante additionality and development outcome assessment framework 2.0: inception report. 2020. https://idev.afdb.org/sites/default/files/documents/files/ADOA%202.0%20Evaluation%20Inception%20final%20DEC2020.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  107. African Development Bank Group. Annual development effectiveness review 2020: building resilient African economies. 2020. https://www.afdb.org/sites/default/files/2020/10/30/ader_2020_en.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  108. European Investment Bank. Additionality and impact measurement. 2021. https://www.eib.org/en/projects/cycle/monitoring/aim.htm. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  109. Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Aid quality check template. 2021. https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/aid-quality-check-template. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  110. European Commission. Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox. 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en#iiiidentifyimpactsinimpactassessmentsevaluationsandfitnesschecks. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  111. European Investment Bank Group. The EIB Group strategy on gender equality and women’s economic empowerment. 2017. https://www.eib.org/en/publications/eib-group-strategy-on-gender-equality. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  112. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. DAC gender equality policy marker. 2019. https://www.oecd.org/dac/gender-development/dac-gender-equality-marker.htm. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  113. Government of Canada. Gender equality—tools and resources. 2019. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/funding-financement/advancing_gender-batir_sexes.aspx?lang=eng. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  114. Asian Development Bank. Greater Mekong subregion health cooperation strategy 2019–2023. Mandaluyong City2019. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/511771/gms-health-cooperation-strategy-2019-2023.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  115. World Health Organization. Health impact assessment. 2021. https://www.who.int/health-topics/health-impact-assessment#tab=tab_1. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  116. World Health Organization. Workers’ health: global plan of action—Sixtieth World Health Assembly. 2007. https://www.who.int/occupational_health/WHO_health_assembly_en_web.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  117. European Investment Bank Group. Global solutions, international partnerships: the European Investment Bank development report 2021. 2021. https://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/the_eib_development_report_2021_en.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2021.

  118. European Investment Bank. The EIB-GDN programme in applied development finance. 2021. https://www.eib.org/en/publications-research/economics/impact/eib-gdn/index.htm. Accessed 8 July 2021.

  119. European Investment Bank Group. Assessing impacts on jobs and growth. 2021. https://www.eib.org/en/publications-research/economics/impact/rhomolo/index.htm. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  120. World Health Organization. Health labour market analysis guidebook. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

  121. Government of Canada. Risk management (GAC). 2018. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/funding-financement/risk_management-gestion_risques.aspx?lang=eng. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  122. United Kingdom Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. Risk management. 2021. https://www.ukaidmatch.org/grantholder-guidance/risk-management/. Accessed 9 Dec 2021.

  123. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria. Epidemiological and impact analysis. Guidance note: version 3.4 Geneva2014. https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/5211/me_programreviewsepidemiologicalandimpactanalysis_guidancenote_en.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  124. The World Bank Group. Guidance for preparation of country engagement products. 2018. https://ppfdocuments.azureedge.net/1e77ac41-2540-44d7-ad2c-1384abff3b63.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  125. Government of Canada: Global Affairs Canada. Official Development Assistance Accountability Act—taking into account the perspectives of the poor. 2020. https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/publications/odaaa-lrmado/odaaa_poor-lrmado_pauvres.aspx?lang=eng. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  126. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Regulatory impact assessment. 2021. https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/ria.htm. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  127. Global Health Workforce Alliance. Global members and partners. 2021. https://www.who.int/workforcealliance/members_partners/global/en/. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  128. Global Health Workforce Alliance. Alliance board. 2016. https://www.who.int/workforcealliance/about/governance/board/en/. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  129. Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp. Working for Health: a review of the relevance and effectiveness of the five-year action plan for health employment and economic growth (2017–2021) and ILO-OECD-WHO Working for Health programme. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

  130. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Eurostat, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Joint data collection on non-monetary health care statistics: guidelines for completing the OECD/Eurostat/WHO-Europe questionnaire 2021. 2021. https://www.oecd.org/statistics/data-collection/Health%20Data%20-%20Guidelines%202.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  131. Williams GA, Jacob G, Rakovac I, Scotter C, Wismar M. Health professional mobility in the WHO European Region and the WHO Global Code of Practice: data from the joint OECD/EUROSTAT/WHO-Europe questionnaire. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30(Suppl_4):iv5–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. World Health Organization, Global Health Workforce Network. Global Health Workforce Network: Labour Market Hub. 2017. https://www.who.int/hrh/network/LabourMarketHub.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  133. European Commission. Health workforce: overview. 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/health/workforce/overview_en. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  134. African Development Bank Group. The African statistical yearbook 2020. 2021. https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/african-statistical-yearbook-2020. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  135. Liu JX, Goryakin Y, Maeda A, Bruckner T, Scheffler R. Global health workforce labor market projections for 2030. Hum Resour Health. 2017;15(1):11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health workforce. 2021. https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/workforce.htm. Accessed 6 July 2021.

  137. United Nations Population Fund, World Health Organization, International Confederation of Midwives. The state of the world’s midwifery 2021: building a health workforce to meet the needs of women, newborns and adolescents everywhere. New York: United Nations Population Fund; 2021.

  138. United Nations Population Fund. Analysis of the sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn and adolescent health workforce in East and Southern Africa. Johannesburg: United Nations Population Fund East and Southern Africa Regional Office; 2017.

  139. United Nations Population Fund Arab States Regional Office. Analysis of the midwifery workforce in selected Arab countries. Cairo: United Nations Population Fund Arab States Regional Office; 2015.

  140. United Nations Population Fund. The state of the Pacific’s reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health workforce. Suva: United Nations Population Fund Pacific Sub-Regional Office; 2019.

  141. World Health Organization. Report of the WHO Expert Advisory Group on the relevance and effectiveness of the WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel: report by the Director-General to the Seventy-third World Health Assembly. 2020. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA73/A73_9-en.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  142. World Health Organization. State of the world’s nursing 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.

  143. World Health Organization. Delivered by women, led by men: a gender and equity analysis of the global health and social workforce. Geneva: World Health Organization Global Health Workforce Network’s Gender Equity Hub; 2019.

  144. World Health Organization. Health and care worker deaths during COVID-19. 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/20-10-2021-health-and-care-worker-deaths-during-covid-19. Accessed 8 November 2021.

  145. Zapata T, Zakoji M, Kanda M, Travis P, Tangcharoensathien V, Buchan J, et al. Implementing a decade of strengthening the health workforce in the WHO South-East Asia Region: achievements and way forward for primary health care. WHO South-East Asia J Public Health. 2021;10(3):76–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Pan American Health Organization. PAHO launches new study on migration of health workers in the Caribbean. 2018. https://www3.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14089:paho-launches-new-study-migration-health-workers-caribbean&Itemid=1926&lang=en. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  147. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Strengthening health systems through nursing: evidence from 14 European countries. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2019.

  148. Vital Wave, IntraHealth, Cooper/Smith. Human resources for health: workforce analytics for design and planning. Palo Alto: Vital Wave; 2021.

  149. SEPEN Consortium. Mapping of national health workforce planning and policies in the EU-28. Luxembourg: European Union; 2021.

  150. Scheffler RM, Herbst CH, Lemiere C, Campbell J. Health labor market analyses in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence-based approach. Washington D.C.: World Bank; 2016.

  151. World Health Organization. National Health Workforce Accounts data portal. World Health Organization; 2021. https://apps.who.int/nhwaportal/. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  152. World Health Organization. Human Resources for Health Information System: minimum data set for health workforce registry. 2015. https://www.who.int/hrh/statistics/minimun_data_set.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  153. World Health Organization. Understanding the workforce situation through health labour market analysis. 2021. https://www.who.int/activities/understanding-the-workforce-situation-through-health-labour-market-analysis. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  154. Kroezen M, Van Hoegaerden M, Batenburg R. The Joint Action on Health Workforce Planning and Forecasting: results of a European programme to improve health workforce policies. Health Policy. 2018;122(2):87–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Mummert A. Guidelines for an employment and labour market analysis (ELMA). 2014. https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/201403_Guidelines_Employment%20Analysis_ELMA_Final_web.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  156. Greenwell F, Salentine S. Health information system strengthening: standards and best practices. 2018. https://www.measureevaluation.org/resources/publications/tr-17-225/index.html. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  157. Capacity Project. HRH action framework: HR management systems. 2021. https://www.capacityproject.org/framework/hr-management-systems/. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  158. World Bank. Human resources for health. 2013. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/health/brief/human-resources-health. Accessed 6 Dec 2021.

  159. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Health Statistics 2021. 2021. https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  160. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. List of variables in OECD Health statistics 2020. 2020. https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/List-of-variables-OECD-Health-Statistics-2020.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  161. Vera I, Jaeger K, Springmann L. Gender equality in the health workforce: An analysis of donor financing. SEEK Development; 2019. https://donortracker.org/insights/gender-equality-health-workforce-analysis-donor-financing. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  162. World Health Organization. Global health workforce statistics database. 2021. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/health-workforce. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  163. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Health workforce. 2021. https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/themes/health-system-functions/human-resources/health-workforce. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  164. The Capacity Project. Observatory strengthens human resources for health in Africa. 2006. https://www.capacityproject.org/index.php%3Foption=com_content&view=article&id=110:observatory-strengthens-human-resources-for-health-in-africa&catid=17:news.html. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  165. Pan American Health Organization. Observatorio regional de recursos humanos de salud. 2021. https://www.observatoriorh.org/index.php. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  166. Pan American Health Organization. Observatory of human resources in health of Caribbean. 2012. https://caribe.observatoriorh.org/. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  167. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. Human resources for health observatory. 2017. http://www.emro.who.int/human-resources-observatory/about/about-the-programme.html. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  168. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. About us. 2021. https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/about-us/overview. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  169. IntraHealth. Ghana. 2021. https://www.intrahealth.org/countries/ghana. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  170. United States Agency for International Development. Strengthening Jordan’s human resources for health observatory for reliable health workforce data. 2017. https://hrh2030program.org/observatoryqa/. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  171. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria. 2020–2022 strategic initiatives. 2020. https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/9228/fundingmodel_2020-2022strategicinitiatives_list_en.pdf?u=637319006151300000. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  172. World Health Organization Eritrea. Tracking progress towards the achievement of universal health coverage: Eritrea. 2021. https://www.afro.who.int/news/tracking-progress-towards-achievement-universal-health-coverage-eritrea. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  173. Waters KP, Mazivila ME, Dgedge M, Necochea E, Manharlal D, Zuber A, et al. eSIP-Saude: Mozambique’s novel approach for a sustainable human resources for health information system. Hum Resour Health. 2016;14(1):66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  174. World Health Organization Nigeria. Nigeria launches the National Health Workforce Country Profile towards achieving universal health coverage. 2020. https://www.afro.who.int/news/nigeria-launches-national-health-workforce-country-profile-towards-achieving-universal-health. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  175. World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean. Palestine human resources for health observatory. 2019. http://www.emro.who.int/health-workforce/highlights/palestinian-human-resources-for-healh-observatory.html. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  176. Vital Wave. Human resources for health assessment. 2021. https://vitalwave.com/case-study/human-resources-for-health-assessment/.

  177. Government of Canada. Project profile: human resources for health in Bangladesh. 2019. https://w05.international.gc.ca/projectbrowser-banqueprojets/project-projet/details/A034608001. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  178. Likofata Esanga J-R, Viadro C, McManus L, Wesson J, Matoko N, Ngumbu E, et al. How the introduction of a human resources information system helped the Democratic Republic of Congo to mobilise domestic resources for an improved health workforce. Health Policy Plann. 2017;32(suppl_3):iii25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. United Kingdom Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. Nepal Health Sector Programme III. 2021. https://devtracker.fcdo.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-205145/documents. Accessed 9 Dec 2021.

  180. United States Agency for International Development. Build sustainability of investment in the health workforce. 2021. https://hrh2030program.org/build-sustainability-of-investment-in-the-health-workforce/. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  181. United States Agency for International Development. Case study series: supporting National Health Workforce Accounts in Ethiopia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. 2021. https://hrh2030program.org/nhwa-case-study-series/. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  182. Were V, Jere E, Lanyo K, Mburu G, Kiriinya R, Waudo A, et al. Success of a South-South collaboration on human resources information systems (HRIS) in health: a case of Kenya and Zambia HRIS collaboration. Hum Resour Health. 2019;17(1):6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. CapacityPlus. Uganda launches national health workforce information system built on iHRIS. 2012. https://www.capacityplus.org/Uganda-Launches-National-Health-Workforce-Information-System.html. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

  184. Seebregts C, Fourie C, Crichton R, Venter H, Dane P, Naidoo W, et al. Introduction to OpenHIE and interoperability for national health information systems. Jembi Health Systems; 2021. http://bidinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Jembi-BID-L-OpenHIE-and-Interoperability-presentation_FINALv2.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  185. Working for Health. Bangladesh undertakes steps to assess health labour dynamics. 2018. https://working4health.org/node/158/. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  186. World Health Organization India. Health labour market analysis: Chhattisgarh. 2020. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/searo/india/publications/policy-brief-health-labour-market-analysis9-july-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=102d865d_2. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  187. World Health Organization. Health labour market analysis: Sri Lanka. 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/324911. Accessed 7 Dec 2021.

  188. Thinkwell. Health labor market analysis in Malawi. 2021. https://thinkwell.global/projects/health-labor-market-analysis-malawi/. Accessed 12 July 2021.

  189. European Commission. Eurostat education and training database. 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/education-and-training/data/database.

  190. World Health Organization. UHC compendium: health interventions for universal health coverage. 2021. https://www.who.int/universal-health-coverage/compendium#:~:text=The%20UHC%20Compendium%20is%20a,health%20services%20and%20health%20interventions.

  191. Micah AE, Solorio J, Stutzman H, Zhao Y, Tsakalos G, Dieleman JL. Development assistance for human resources for health, 1990–2020. Hum Resour Health. 2022;20(1):51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  192. Cernuschi T, Gaglione S, Bozzani F. Challenges to sustainable immunization systems in Gavi transitioning countries. Vaccine. 2018;36(45):6858–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  193. Daly G, Kaufman J, Lin S, Gao L, Reyes M, Matemu S, et al. Challenges and opportunities in China’s health aid to Africa: findings from qualitative interviews in Tanzania and Malawi. Global Health. 2020;16(1):71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  194. Seidelmann L, Koutsoumpa M, Federspiel F, Philips M. The Global Financing Facility at five: time for a change? Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020;28(2):1795446.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  195. United Nations Children's Fund. UNICEF programming in health systems strengthening: a formative evaluation. 2019. https://evaluationreports.unicef.org/GetDocument?fileID=11711. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  196. Global Financing Facility. GFF strategy 2021–2025: protecting, promoting and accelerating health gains for women, children and adolescents. 2020. https://www.globalfinancingfacility.org/gff-strategy-2021-2025-protecting-promoting-and-accelerating-health-gains-women-children-and. Accessed 7 July 2021.

  197. Van Lerberghe W, Adams O, Ferrinho P. Human resources impact assessment. Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(7):525.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  198. Asian Development Bank. An external review of the independent evaluation department. 2018. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/464656/adb-ied-external-review.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2021.

  199. World Health Organization. Strengthening the collection, analysis and use of health workforce data and information: a handbook. 2022. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/365680.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Kirsty Hughes (Novametrics Ltd) provided valuable support with searches and reference management.

Funding

WHO provided financial support for this analysis through grants by the governments of France, Germany and Luxembourg. The donors had no role in the conceptualisation, review or approval of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Novametrics Ltd, Derby, DE56 4HQ, United Kingdom

    Andrea Nove

  2. World Health Organization, Health Workforce Department, Geneva, Switzerland

    Onyema Ajuebor, Khassoum Diallo, James Campbell & Giorgio Cometto

Authors
  1. Andrea Nove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Onyema Ajuebor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Khassoum Diallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giorgio Cometto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GC, KD, JC and OA conceptualized the study and identified the partner organizations to include in the study. AN conducted the searches, analysed the located literature, collected follow-up information from selected partners, and wrote the initial draft of this manuscript. GC, OA, KD and JC reviewed and made substantial inputs to the draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Nove.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Search terms.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nove, A., Ajuebor, O., Diallo, K. et al. The roles and involvement of global health partners in the health workforce: an exploratory analysis. Hum Resour Health 21, 41 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-023-00825-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-023-00825-5

Keywords

Human Resources for Health

ISSN: 1478-4491