A map of recent global research on how health systems are financed, built from
studies published since 2010, showing where evidence is plentiful and where it is thin.
2010 onwardRecent published research only
GlobalAll countries, health settings and diseases
2 mapsFinancing functions and economic evaluations
About the project
Health systems everywhere are under pressure. In high-income countries, ageing
populations and tight budgets are straining care; in low- and middle-income countries,
growing populations must be served as development assistance for health falls.
Governments and funders need to know what the evidence says about raising, pooling and
spending money for health, and where it is missing.
This project systematically maps the recent global empirical research on
health system financing, published since 2010. It covers how money for health
is raised, pooled, allocated and spent, as well as upstream investment in facilities,
workforce, medicines and supply chains, and what these choices mean for health-system
performance and the wider economy.
The maps describe the shape of the evidence base. They do not judge which financing
approaches work best, rate study quality or pool results. Their main purpose is to help
researchers, funders and decision-makers see which policy-relevant areas are well
studied and which are underexplored, to inform future research priorities and funding.
What the evidence maps show
The evidence is presented as two linked maps. Each offers interactive visuals for
exploring where research has been done, on what topics, with which methods, and how
this has changed over time.
Health Financing Functions
How are health systems financed?
Research on the core financing functions (revenue raising, pooling, purchasing,
benefit decisions and public financial management), plus capital investment and
supply-chain financing, and the outcomes linked to them.
Full economic evaluations that compare two or more ways of delivering care on both
costs and health consequences, giving a focused view of value-for-money evidence.
Spot evidence gaps: heatmaps show how often topics, outcomes and
study characteristics are studied together, highlighting thinly researched
combinations.
See where research comes from: country maps and profiles show the
geographic spread of evidence by country, region and income group.
Track trends: time charts show how the evidence base has grown and
shifted since 2010.
Explore themes: topic maps group studies by recurring themes found
in the research itself.
Find studies: a filterable explorer lets you search and narrow
studies by topic, country, method and more.
Which studies are included
A study is included only if it meets all of the following.
Published since 2010 in an academic journal, as an article or a
review. Searches use English terms, but studies in any language are eligible.
About health system financing: recurrent financing of health
services, capital investment in health-system inputs (such as facilities, workforce
and medicines), or supply-chain financing, and their consequences for health-system
and societal goals.
Empirical: based on observed data, analysed quantitatively,
qualitatively or with mixed methods. Designs range from descriptive studies to
experiments; there is no minimum standard of rigour.
Global: no restriction by country, health setting or disease.
Economic evaluations count only if they are full evaluations:
they compare both costs and benefits across two or more ways of delivering care,
using their own analysis.
Not included
Grey literature, such as reports and working papers not published in journals.
Theory, opinion and commentary pieces without empirical data.
Partial economic evaluations (for example, cost-only or budget-impact studies), and
those that only reuse cost-effectiveness estimates from other studies.
The Health Economic Evaluations map applies the economic-evaluation criteria above.
How the maps are built
Start with the approach shared by both maps, then open a map's tab for its full scope
and methods, shown exactly as on that map's Methods page.
Approach
Systematic evidence mapping of journal articles published since 2010, following the
published protocol.
Building on
Berrang-Ford et al. (2021),
we used machine-learning-assisted screening, prioritisation and data extraction
at title and abstract level, with large language models (LLMs) coding studies at scale.
What the maps do and don't do
They show where research exists and where it is thin.
They do not assess study quality or risk of bias, or pool results across studies.
Comparisons with disease burden or health spending are ecological, not causal.