Back

System-Wide Investments Enhance HIV, TB and Malaria Control in Malawi and Deliver Greater Health Impact

Mangal, T. D.; Mohan, S.; Molaro, M.; Collins, J. H.; Colbourn, T.; Janouskova, E.; Murray-Watson, R.; Nkhoma, D.; Phillips, A. N.; She, B.; Twea, P. D.; Walker, S.; Revill, P.; Hallett, T. B.

2025-04-30 public and global health
10.1101/2025.04.29.25326667 medRxiv
Show abstract

Global health initiatives have expanded access to treatment for infectious diseases - especially HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria (HTM) - in low- and middle-income countries. However, these "vertically"-funded programs often operate within fragile health systems, where workforce shortages and supply chain failures constrain their effectiveness and sustainability 1,2. Meanwhile, evaluating the health impact and value-for- money of "horizontal" investments in systems, such as supply chain strengthening or boosting healthcare workforce, and their synergies with vertical programs (through "diagonal" investments combining both) - remains challenging because their benefits are mediated through improvements in many aspects of healthcare delivery and are therefore difficult to measure3. Using a dynamic microsimulation model of Malawis healthcare system, we show that a diagonal investment approach yields a four-fold greater health impact, measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, than the vertical approach. This approach not only improves health outcomes for non-HTM causes of DALYs but also amplifies the effect on DALYs caused by HTM. Additionally, diagonal investments offer greater value for money and a 24.94% higher return on investment (6.67 [5.81 - 6.85] compared with 5.34 [3.44 - 6.24]), even after accounting for their additional costs. Our findings demonstrate that HSS investments generate synergistic effects, amplifying the benefits of GHIs while also strengthening broader healthcare delivery. These results support a shift toward more integrated global health financing strategies.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.