| Id |
Subject |
Object |
Predicate |
Lexical cue |
| T51 |
0-43 |
Sentence |
denotes |
A robust, practitioner-informed methodology |
| T52 |
44-245 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Data for each of the GHS Index’s 34 indicators and 85 sub-indicators were either sourced from existing repositories stewarded by reputable groups like WHO, or qualitatively assessed by EIU researchers. |
| T53 |
246-308 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Qualitative data were scored on a binary or categorical scale. |
| T54 |
309-414 |
Sentence |
denotes |
To minimise researcher bias and subjectivity in scoring, we employed binary indicators wherever possible. |
| T55 |
415-549 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Measurements were normalised on a 0–100 scale to facilitate reproducible cross-country, cross-indicator and cross-category comparison. |
| T56 |
550-744 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Detailed justifications, sources and scoring criteria are provided for each indicator in the GHS Index model, report and website to ensure both appropriate contextualisation and reproducibility. |
| T57 |
745-922 |
Sentence |
denotes |
Data review and validation comprised a year-long process involving multiple researchers vetting scores, data and justifications in stages to ensure consistency across countries. |
| T58 |
923-1462 |
Sentence |
denotes |
The model’s default ‘expert’ weights were derived from extensive deliberation and input from the GHS Index International Panel of Experts, a group of 21 subject matter experts in health security representing organizations in 13 countries.16 However, recognising that no single weighting scheme can reflect every country’s priorities, we also built flexibilities into the GHS Index model: users can customise weights based on context-specific considerations, priorities or other criteria, and country scores and rankings adjust accordingly. |
