What are Global Goods: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|+ style="caption-top; color:#e76700;"| From National Academy of Sciences: [http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/global-health-and-the-future-role-of-the-united-states.aspx "Global Health and the Future Role of the United Statesâ ] | |+ style="caption-top; color:#e76700;"| From National Academy of Sciences: [http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/global-health-and-the-future-role-of-the-united-states.aspx "Global Health and the Future Role of the United Statesâ ] | ||
| The tremendous value and corresponding excitement that digital health provides has come at a cost, as the proliferation of interest and the variety of stakeholders involved has created a fragmented approach to the use of digital tools for health in many countries. In fact, in 2012, Uganda issued a temporary moratorium on digital health pilots because its health system became overrun with them (Green, 2016). Aid programs, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies often create individual, disease-focused tools that fail to be interoperable with one another and are duplicative to in-country systems. Therefore, despite the large investment in digital health applications, these parallel structures often lead to inefficiencies because they cannot be used for other diseases or health priorities. Multiple donors and organizations may be funding and operating multiple surveillance systems for different diseases in the same country, instead of aligning themselves into one interoperable system, integrated with existing national health system infrastructure. The benefit of digital health applications notwithstanding, there is a clear need for a paradigm shift in digital health infrastructure investments. The global health community and U.S. global health programs need to move away from the current practice of single application solutions to a more strategic approach that acts holistically with both current country priorities and long term goals (Mehl and Labrique, 2014). By better coordinating the development of digital health applications, stakeholders involved in digital health can reduce duplication and ensure that the platforms are more aligned with those priorities and goals. | | The tremendous value and corresponding excitement that digital health provides has come at a cost, as the proliferation of interest and the variety of stakeholders involved has created a fragmented approach to the use of digital tools for health in many countries. In fact, in 2012, Uganda issued a temporary moratorium on digital health pilots because its health system became overrun with them (Green, 2016). Aid programs, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies often create individual, disease-focused tools that fail to be interoperable with one another and are duplicative to in-country systems. Therefore, despite the large investment in digital health applications, these parallel structures often lead to inefficiencies because they cannot be used for other diseases or health priorities. Multiple donors and organizations may be funding and operating multiple surveillance systems for different diseases in the same country, instead of aligning themselves into one interoperable system, integrated with existing national health system infrastructure. The benefit of digital health applications notwithstanding, there is a clear need for a paradigm shift in digital health infrastructure investments. The global health community and U.S. global health programs need to move away from the current practice of single application solutions to a more strategic approach that acts holistically with both current country priorities and long term goals (Mehl and Labrique, 2014). By better coordinating the development of digital health applications, stakeholders involved in digital health can reduce duplication and ensure that the platforms are more aligned with those priorities and goals. | ||
|} | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|+ style="caption-top; color:#e76700;"| From GSMA: [https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=c581aa43bdb7b7d236bb937698c2d6fd&download" Scaling digital health in developing marketsâ ] | |||
| Digital health is still in its infancy. Many pilots are not followed by full-scale implementation due to a lack of sustainable nancing, high risks for individual stakeholders and long time-to-market for commercial solutions. | |||
Greater and more stable government investment in digital health â as opposed to cyclical/individual initiatives â can help drive scale in developing countries, as venture-capital activity is limited and private sector healthcare provision is at a low scale. Digital health stakeholders need to stimulate government investment by demonstrating how digital health solutions help address national healthcare issues of poor access, quality and cost ine ciencies. Ministries of health also need to encourage and support the implementation of national digital health plans aligned with ICT and broadband agendas. | |||
|} | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|+ style="caption-top; color:#e76700;"| From World Bank: [http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/896971468194972881/pdf/102725-PUB-Replacement-PUBLIC.pdf "Digital Dividendsâ ] | |||
| Replacing paper-based patient registers with | |||
electronic registers should help improve local health | |||
care quality and inform management decision making. | |||
Similarly, increasing the use of e-health and | |||
m-health approaches and tools can support improved | |||
decision making by frontline providers, including | |||
GPS-enabled tools and harnessing the revolution that | |||
smartphone access to broadband content will bring | |||
about in developing countries. In this regard, more | |||
emphasis is needed to expand and improve the use | |||
and functionality of open-source software platforms | |||
(for example, OpenMRS, OpenLMIS, and iHRIS); | |||
develop new open-source platforms (for example, for | |||
health insurance and training); and support opensource | |||
frameworks (for example, OpenHIE).6 | |||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 16:28, 2 November 2017
What is a Global Good?
Digital Square supports investments into various digital health tools which are Global Goods.
Digital health tools which are global goods are software that is (usually) Free and Open Source (FOSS), supported by a strong community, has a clear governance structure, funded by multiple sources, deployed at significant scale, used in multiple countries, has demonstrated effectiveness, is designed to be interoperable and is an emergent standard application.
The Need For Global Goods
| The tremendous value and corresponding excitement that digital health provides has come at a cost, as the proliferation of interest and the variety of stakeholders involved has created a fragmented approach to the use of digital tools for health in many countries. In fact, in 2012, Uganda issued a temporary moratorium on digital health pilots because its health system became overrun with them (Green, 2016). Aid programs, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies often create individual, disease-focused tools that fail to be interoperable with one another and are duplicative to in-country systems. Therefore, despite the large investment in digital health applications, these parallel structures often lead to inefficiencies because they cannot be used for other diseases or health priorities. Multiple donors and organizations may be funding and operating multiple surveillance systems for different diseases in the same country, instead of aligning themselves into one interoperable system, integrated with existing national health system infrastructure. The benefit of digital health applications notwithstanding, there is a clear need for a paradigm shift in digital health infrastructure investments. The global health community and U.S. global health programs need to move away from the current practice of single application solutions to a more strategic approach that acts holistically with both current country priorities and long term goals (Mehl and Labrique, 2014). By better coordinating the development of digital health applications, stakeholders involved in digital health can reduce duplication and ensure that the platforms are more aligned with those priorities and goals. |
| Digital health is still in its infancy. Many pilots are not followed by full-scale implementation due to a lack of sustainable nancing, high risks for individual stakeholders and long time-to-market for commercial solutions.
Greater and more stable government investment in digital health â as opposed to cyclical/individual initiatives â can help drive scale in developing countries, as venture-capital activity is limited and private sector healthcare provision is at a low scale. Digital health stakeholders need to stimulate government investment by demonstrating how digital health solutions help address national healthcare issues of poor access, quality and cost ine ciencies. Ministries of health also need to encourage and support the implementation of national digital health plans aligned with ICT and broadband agendas. |
| Replacing paper-based patient registers with
electronic registers should help improve local health care quality and inform management decision making. Similarly, increasing the use of e-health and m-health approaches and tools can support improved decision making by frontline providers, including GPS-enabled tools and harnessing the revolution that smartphone access to broadband content will bring about in developing countries. In this regard, more emphasis is needed to expand and improve the use and functionality of open-source software platforms (for example, OpenMRS, OpenLMIS, and iHRIS); develop new open-source platforms (for example, for health insurance and training); and support opensource frameworks (for example, OpenHIE).6 |
Maturity Model
To help identify areas of investments for global goods, Digital Square is developing a Global Good Maturity Model for digital health tools. We have engaged the digital health community in the development of this model, in particular the Digital Health and Interoperability Working Group of the Health Data Collaborative.
Currently, the maturity model is in draft (beta) form and a release candidate will be presented at the Global Digital Health Forum in December of 2017.
