Table 1.

Comparison of Traditional DAH and GHPs

FactorTraditional DAHGHPs
GoalImprove health of patients and communities, decrease disease burdenStrengthen local health systems, foster personal and professional growth for all partners
DesignReactive, 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 aidExternal funding provides majority of supportLocal funding for ongoing program needs supplemented by external funding for start-up needs
Focus on sustainabilityMay not be high priority; intent is to match available external interests/funding to potential applications in a community or organizationTypically high priority; interest exists within a community to support a program after initial support wanes
Potential attributesCan 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 challengesReliance 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