Consultant-CSL/HPD - Surveillance Integration and Transition Models-Gates Foundation Funded Initiative Band Level C

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that the deadline for receipt of applications indicated above reflects your personal device's system settings.

Purpose of the consultancy

Lead Intervention 1 of the Gates Foundation-funded initiative on sustaining polio detection and response through integrated multi-pathogen surveillance. Develop and apply a common mixed-methods approach in two countries, oversee evidence collection and validation, and turn the findings into transition lessons and recommendations.

Background

WHO EMRO's 36-month initiative uses polio transition to assess how surveillance functions, staff, laboratories, reporting and financing can move into integrated national systems while retaining essential poliovirus surveillance performance and accountability. Intervention 1 will assess post-GPEI transition in two EMR countries through documents, programme data, workflow mapping and interviews, producing O1.1 transition evidence and lessons and O1.2 practical integration models and recommendations.

Planned timelines:

Start date: 25 October 2026

End date: 25 April 2027

Work to be performed

The consultant will:

- Develop a common mixed-methods assessment approach and tools

- With WHO EMRO, Country Offices, government focal points agree country engagement, sampling and fieldwork plans.

- Lead documentary review in both countries, reconstruct transition chronologies, extract selected indicators and map surveillance and laboratory workflows.

- Direct country data collection with designated WCO national staff, oversee interviews and other fieldwork, and assure consistent evidence quality across countries.

- Analyze in each country:

o the transition pathway, implementation, adaptations, barriers, enablers and unintended effects; and

o the policy, institutional, workforce and financing context shaping surveillance sustainability.

- Integrate the desk review and country evidence into O1.1: two country transition assessment reports and a cross-country comparative synthesis. The synthesis should draw together the implementation and context analyses, identifying evidence-based lessons from both countries.

- Lead country review meetings and a regional/global technical consultation to validate lessons and test their relevance across contexts. Present evidence, facilitate discussion and document responses to disagreements.

- Use O1.1 and consultation findings to prepare O1.2: practical transition models and integration recommendations.

- Submit monthly updates on progress, the workplan, risks, quality assurance and outstanding requirements.

- Submit drafts to CSL and the IDS-TWG subcommittee and address consolidated comments through the agreed review cycles.

Outputs and deliverables

Output 1 — The common method and country implementation arrangements are in place

Deliverable 1.1 — Inception, methodology and country implementation package. One package establishing the common approach and arrangements for data collection in both countries.

Minimum required content:

• A common mixed-methods framework based on MRC process evaluation, covering transition history; surveillance and laboratory functions; governance, financing, workforce and coordination; data pathways; context, mechanisms and resilience under stress.
• Tools for document requests and extraction, transition timelines, stakeholder sampling, interviews, workflow mapping, quantitative extraction and evidence comparison. Respondents should include Ministry of Health surveillance, laboratory, polio/VPD, finance and planning staff; WHO partners and subnational implementers.
• An Ethics and Data Governance Plan covering required reviews and clearances; informed participation and recording consent; confidentiality, anonymization and secure data management; ownership and permitted use; breach reporting; and WHO and national requirements. Confirm all clearances before data collection.
• An analysis plan for documentary, quantitative and qualitative evidence, triangulation, comparison and conflicting or missing data.
• A country implementation plan agreed with each WHO Country Office, government focal points and national consultant.
• Mission coordination, including dates, participants, appointments, briefings, access and logistics.
• A risk register for access, participation, data quality, ethics, timing and deliverables, with mitigation and escalation. Include alternative data collection, engagement and mission arrangements where insecurity or access constraints require them.
• An assignment workplan covering fieldwork, missions, analysis, meetings, consultation and delivery dates.

Output 2 — Country evidence is collected and two complete transition assessments are produced

Deliverable 2.1 — Two stand-alone country assessments integrating documents, available programme data, workflow mapping, interviews and fieldwork.

The senior consultant will lead documentary review and coordinate missions and data collection with each national consultant, reviewing evidence and assuring consistent use of the common method.

Each country report will assess four linked areas:

1. Intervention description. Describe transition objectives and scope, the functions, assets and capacities affected, institutions and actors, and a verified chronology. Cover surveillance and laboratory arrangements before, during and after transition.

2. Implementation process. Compare planned and actual implementation. Examine actor roles and coordination, resources, reach and sequencing, variation across functions and administrative levels, and operational adaptations, barriers and enablers.

3. Mechanisms of change. Examine how actors and institutions responded and how changes in governance, financing, workforce and operations affected surveillance integration and continuity. Identify intended and unintended effects and remaining operational risks.

4. Context. Assess policy and institutional arrangements, mandates, accountability, financing and budget responsibilities, external dependence. Explain how conflict, outbreaks, fiscal constraints or restructuring shaped implementation and sustainability.

Output 3 — Lessons from the two countries are comparatively synthesized

Deliverable 3.1 — Cross-country synthesis of evidence and lessons. One analysis comparing and interpreting the two country experiences, their pathways and mechanisms, rather than repeati