Introduction: the effect of the Global polio eradication initiative (PEI) on public health programs beyond polio is widely debated. PEI contribution to other health programs has been assessed from the perspective of polio-funded personnel, which may introduce bias as PEI staff are probably more likely to show that they have benefited of other programs. We set out to identify and document how public health programs have benefited from the public health capacity that was provided at the country level as part of the PEI program in a systematic and standardized manner.

Methods: between July and November 2017, we conducted a mixed-methods cross-sectional study, which combined two methods: a multi-country quantitative survey and a qualitative study. We created a self-administered electronic multi-lingual questionnaire in English, French and Portuguese. The qualitative study, which followed an interim analysis of the quantitative survey, comprised interviews with national and subnational level staff in a few countries.

Results: a total of 127 public health workers from 43 of the 47 countries in the African WHO Region responded online. Most of the respondents 56/127 (42.7%) belonged to the immunization sector and 51/127 (38.9%) belonged to the emergencies and outbreaks sector. Respondents who identified themselves with the immunization (50/64 (78%)) and maternal health program (64/82 (78%)) reported the highest level of greatly benefiting from PEI resources. A total of 78/103 (76%) respondents rated PEI’s contribution data management system to their program very high and high. Of the 127 respondents, the majority 91 (71.6%) reported that the withdrawal of PEI resources would result in a weakening of surveillance for other diseases; 88 (62.9%) reported that there would be inadequate resources to carry out planned activities and 80 (62.9%) reported that there would be poor logistics and transport for implementation of activities. Cameroon, DRC, Nigeria and Uganda participated in the qualitative study. Each country had between 7-8 key informants from the national and sub-national level for a total of 31 key informants. Polio funds and other PEI resources have supported various activities in the ministries of health of the four countries especially IDSR, data management, laboratories and development of the public health workforce. Respondents believed that the infrastructure and processes that PEI has created need to be maintained, along with the workforce and they believed that this was an essential role of their governments with support from the partners.

Conclusion: there is a high awareness of the PEI program in all the countries and at all levels which should be leveraged into improving other child survival activities for example routine immunizations. Future large-scale programs of this nature should be designed to benefit other public health programs beyond the specific program. The public health workforce, surveillance development, data management and laboratory strengthening that have been developed by PEI need to be maintained.