Analysis
Why we publish the programmes that did not work
Three programmes we closed last year, what they cost, and why the write-ups are on our research page rather than in a drawer.
7 min read
Publication bias in global health is not primarily an academic problem. It is an operational one. When failed programmes go unreported, the next organisation spends the same money learning the same lesson, and the community absorbs the disruption twice.
Last year we closed three programmes. One was a mobile screening initiative that never reached the population it was designed for. One was a school hygiene curriculum that produced no measurable behaviour change. One was a supply chain pilot that worked exactly as designed and cost more than the system it replaced.
All three write-ups are published, with the budgets attached.
Work like this is funded almost entirely by monthly gifts from individuals.
Support our work