Comparison of Traditional DAH and GHPs
| Factor | Traditional DAH | GHPs |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Improve health of patients and communities, decrease disease burden | Strengthen local health systems, foster personal and professional growth for all partners |
| Design | Reactive, project-focused: Provide HIV testing and medication Malaria and tuberculosis control program Local health worker education Introduce technology (CT scan, mobile apps, dialysis etc.) | Proactive, system-focused: Support of new medical residency program Support of child nutrition program using local resources (human, financial, nutrient sources, distribution networks) |
| Source of aid | External funding provides majority of support | Local funding for ongoing program needs supplemented by external funding for start-up needs |
| Focus on sustainability | May not be high priority; intent is to match available external interests/funding to potential applications in a community or organization | Typically high priority; interest exists within a community to support a program after initial support wanes |
| Potential attributes | Can bring significant influx of financial and expert advice to a community in need. Contacts made as part of traditional DAH may foster future global health partnerships. | Relationships and services developed during the partnership may enable additional partnership activities. Community's highest needs are prioritized. May be more successful in addressing root causes of disease. |
| Potential challenges | Reliance on external aid reduces likelihood of sustainability and may siphon local expertise and funds from other needs. | Measuring traditional DAH project deliverables may be difficult or take longer. Community or partner priorities may change over time, decreasing chances of program sustainability. |
Buse et al6, Rosenberg et al7, Starfield8, Olapade-Olaopa9, Melby.10