Intended use and need — 15 points
Reviewers assess the product’s intended users, the need it addresses and the conditions in which it is used. Explain its purpose and any limits on appropriate use.
Global Health Product Awards
Judging criteria
Reviewers assess what the product is intended to do, how well its principal claims are supported and how it has been designed for its users. Each entry is judged against the published requirements for its category, rather than against a fixed quota of winners.
Six criteria · 100 points
What reviewers assess
Performance and supporting evidence — 30 points
Provide evidence that addresses the principal claims of the named product and version. Reviewers consider the method, relevance, consistency and limitations of the material. They distinguish what was measured from what is inferred, and direct evidence from evidence concerning another product, ingredient or context.
Usability and accessibility — 20 points
Explain how people learn to use the product, complete important tasks and recognise errors or limitations. Include relevant user research, instructions, fitting or setup requirements and the needs of different users. Show how the findings relate to important user tasks.
Quality, risk and product information — 20 points
Show how product responsibilities, foreseeable risks, instructions, warnings, maintenance and relevant quality information fit together. Reviewers look for material gaps and inconsistencies between the proposed use, evidence and information supplied to users.
Product improvement or innovation — 10 points
Describe a meaningful improvement against a stated starting point or alternative. It may concern function, design, access, reliability or use. A mature product can demonstrate a useful improvement without claiming to be the first of its kind.
Responsible design and lifecycle — 5 points
Explain relevant arrangements for maintenance, useful life, support, disposal, data handling or supply responsibility. Select issues that matter for the product. Environmental or social claims need their own support; a general company statement does not establish a product attribute.
How ratings become a score
Each criterion receives a rating from 0 to 5, with half-points permitted. The rating is divided by five and multiplied by its weight. The six weighted results add to a score out of 100.
| Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | Information is absent or the criterion cannot be assessed. |
| 1 | The material is substantially inadequate or contains a major unresolved inconsistency. |
| 2 | Some support is present, with important gaps. |
| 3 | The criterion is met with material that can be checked. |
| 4 | The criterion is well supported and the product shows a clear strength in this area. |
| 5 | Exceptionally strong, relevant and consistent support establishes an outstanding result in this area. |
What is required for an award
An award requires at least 80 points overall, a rating of at least 4 for performance and supporting evidence, at least 3 for quality, risk and product information, and at least 2 in every other criterion. An unresolved material authenticity, eligibility or product-risk concern prevents an award even where the numerical total is high enough.
There is one award designation, with no gold, silver or paid upgrade. Scores are not a clinical probability, consumer safety rating or ranking across unlike products.
Differences between categories
Evidence must fit the product. A wearable needs relevant measurement conditions and a reference method; a diagnostic needs clearly defined samples, intended use and performance measures; a supplement must explain whether the evidence applies to its finished formulation. The full rubric gives category examples.
Decisions and feedback
Two reviewers assess an entry independently. A chair checks the reasoning and resolves differences, using a third assessment where required. Applicants receive criterion-level feedback and the reasons for the decision. Purchases, membership and sponsorship do not enter the assessment.