Mind the Global Community Health Funding Gap
Open accessAbstract
Key Messages Community health workers (CHWs) play a critical role in bridging the huge human resources for health gap while providing both essential health services and pandemic response. The case for investment is strong but funding for this sector is limited and fragmented. The current funding gap for at scale CHW program in sub-Saharan Africa has increased from an estimated US$3.1 billion to US$5.4 billion annually but is still cost effective as the cost per capita remains low (US$1.50–US$13.00). To close this funding gap, political prioritization, supportive policies, programs designed to deliver, and reducing fragmentation of existing resources will be critical. Governments can achieve universal health coverage targets by building community health systems that are people centered and quality oriented. Funders should also take a systems approach and focus their investments toward building resilient and sustainable platforms of delivery.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The current level of investment in CHW programmes and community health is poorly documented.
“The current level of investment in CHW programmes and community health is poorly documented, but it will need to grow substantially [118].”
From Community health workers at the dawn of a new era: 11. CHWs leading the way to “Health for All” (2021) · cites this paper as [118]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 7 · Cited by 28
- Authors
- Gichaga, A., Masis, L., Chandra, A., Palazuelos, D., & Wakaba, N.
- Affiliations
- Partners In Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gichaga, Angela
- ORCID
- Chandra, Amit
- Venue
- Global Health: Science and Practice
- Published
- 2021-03-15
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- Supplement 1
- Pages
- S9-S17
- ISSN
- 2169-575X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7971370
- OpenAlex
- W3139480379
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 4.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Global Health Science and Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Global Health Workforce Issues
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Practices
- Keywords
- community health workers, financing gap, health care financing, human resources for health, sub-Saharan Africa, universal health coverage, community health systems, pandemic response, health system resilience, cost-effectiveness
- MeSH terms
- Financing, Organized, Humans, Public Health, Global Health, Healthcare Financing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
