全球卫生集群形成性评估：评估简报

E V A L U A T I O NB R I E F P U R P O S EA N D O B J E C T I V E The evaluation served a dual purpose of accountability and learning designed to generate forward-lookingrecommendations for improving WHO's humanitarian coordination and informing the next GHC (Global Health Cluster)Strategy (2026-2030), as well as assessing progress against GHC's Strategic Priorities, and core country-level clusterfunctions and CLA (Cluster Lead Agency) responsibilities. The evaluation's main objectives were to systematically andobjectively assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence (connectedness, coordination) of the GHC. Theevaluation focused on the GHCs work from September 2014 to 2025, with a particular focus on the last six years (2019-2025). M E T H O D S The evaluation employed a non-experimental design, and theory-based, utilization-focused approach, using areconstructed theory of change (ToC) to test assumptions and examine pathways to results areas. Five overarchingevaluation questions and specific thematic areas related to the GHC Strategic Priorities, Core Cluster Functions and CLAresponsibilities addressed five key criteria: relevance, coherence/coordination, effectiveness, efficiency, connectednessand cross-cutting issues of Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP), gender and disability. Data collection methodsincluded a desk review of 179 documents, secondary data analysis, 106 key informant interviews and 19 focus groupdiscussions. In-depth data were collected remotely in Myanmar, Sudan and Yemen, and face to face in Chad, Colombiaand the Democratic Republic of the Congo. An online survey was administered to 984 respondents at global, regionaland country levels. The evaluation's analytical framework was guided by the ToC, as well as OECD/DAC criteria and datawere coded into evidence tables to facilitate analysis and triangulation across datasets. K E YF I N D I N G S A N D C O N C L U S I O N S Relevance: The GHC is considered relevant as it has strengthened health management and coordination systemsresponding to needs during major humanitarian crises and disease outbreaks even when circumstances changed.The GHC and health clusters at the country level play a vital role in ensuring the appropriate prioritization. Measures toalign interventions with local realities and update plans based on real-time information are critical and the GHC needsto continue playing this vital role. Community engagement and ownership are crucial for ensuring that affectedpopulations participate in decision-making and that interventions align with their long-term health needs. Efficiency: Despite being underfunded, the GHC efficiently delivered results in an economic and timely way at bothglobal and country levels. It has used its very limited financial and human resources extremely well, even at times inemergencies, where the health cluster has not been activated.The GHC’s global leadership has enabled it to fill gaps,including staffing through its surge capacity. The current funding crisis brings new and unprecedented challenges, whichcall for the GHC to prioritize and adjust to the humanitarian reset and home in on core, essential functions, providingthe most essential level of support at both global and country levels Coherence: Overall, the GHC tends to be coherent and well-coordinated with other interventions, both atthe global and country level. While it has strengthened and diversified partner engagement andcollaboration with major humanitarian actors, it could be further mainstreamed within WHO, ensuring itsrole as CLA is not deprioritized in favour of other WHO priorities.At the global level, WHO’s different roles areclearly delineated, however, this often does not translate to the national level, which has resulted in ad hoc lines of communication, siloed operations and limited collaboration with other WHO emergency units.Regional offices offer valuable additional capacity despite the absence of a clearly defined role. Coordination The health cluster has engaged with other clusters to promote inter-sectoral and multi-sectoral collaboration,which in some national contexts, has led to more integrated and effective responses. However, inter-clustercollaboration remains weak in certain countries, and inter-cluster planning does not necessarily translate intomeaningful cooperation during a response. There has been engagement to ensure coherence acrosscoordination mechanisms and further steps are now being taken to strengthen alignment through the GlobalHealth Emergency Corps initiative. Connectedness The GHC has not made significant progress towards strengthening connectedness through transitionplanning, nor capacity strengthening for national authorities in respect of coordination in acute orprotracted crises. There is little evidence that health clusters have strengthened connectedness bystrengthening linkages between humanitarian programming and health system strengthening.Theintegrati