Table 4.

Comparison of key characteristics of Phase I and Phase II.

Themes	Phase I (Pilot Project)	Phase II (Demonstration Project)
Period	2015–2018	2019–2022
Project nature	Subproject of GHSP	Independent project
Leadership type	Government-led	Non-state actor-organized
Key stakeholders	UK: DFID; China: NHC, NIPD; Tanzania: IHI	BMGF, NIPD, IHI, WHO
Decision-making process	Vertical-Strategic Oversight Committee oversight and led, PMO managed and assessed, PIAs and IHI implemented and reported	Horizontal-Addressed and reached decisions through the Coordination Management Committee (CMC)
Funding source	DFID	BMGF
Funding distribution	First advance payment and reimbursement of actual costs afterward (paid in installments)	Paid in lump-sum
Evaluation	Third-party evaluation including a baseline survey, and mid-term and final evaluations	Full-process external evaluation from cost-effectiveness evaluation to epidemiological assessment

Phase I served as one of the pilot projects funded by the 7-year “Global Health: Science and Practice (GHSP)”. Led by the Chinese and UK governments, Phase I maintained a rather vertical decision-making flow with the top-down financial flow and bottom-up report line. The funding was subject to the allocation of GHSP, in an approach of the first advance payment and the actual costs reimbursed afterward. The payments in installments were assessed and distributed every quarter. Phase II instead was an independent project among BMGF, NIPD, and IHI. It implemented a flat organizational structure with a horizontal decision-making platform, known as Coordination Management Committee (CMC). The funding distribution is a lump-sum system. Compared to Phase I, Phase II added a more comprehensive external evaluation that includes a cost-effectiveness analysis to collect full-process evidence.