Snapshot review of Two World Bank COVID-19 Health support programs in Egypt the methodologies adopted aimed to abide by the methodological rigor and embody the spirit of patient centered research in answering the study questions. Limitations and challenges pervaded this research from the outset, due to the unavailability of information. There is practically no literature on this topic and the information provided by the world bank was most limited, non-specific and outdated. The unavailability of information left the researchers unable to map different on ground efforts/implementation of the World Bank project or to even verify any of the data provided. Compounded by the dilution caused by multilateral COVID-19 response funding, it becomes impossible (see Appendix A). Upon request for these basic yet absent information from the World Bank country office, no additional information was provided. As explained in the study’s findings, the delayed response to request for information only referenced the documents available on the website. When contacted again, with the response that this information was not available, no response was received. This was fruitful in highlighting inefficiencies of the “Access to Information Policy”. Furthermore, after communication of an earlier draft of this document to the World Bank, a meeting was requested by the World Bank to discuss the draft, present clarifications and shed the light on key areas that may need revisions. Held on June 30th 2021, the meeting was positive in providing critical needed clarifications and information that were not available to the researchers, however, the World Bank representatives referenced recently disclosed reports and soon-to-be-published documents that would include updates on the projects. 2 months later, and till the date of last update to this document, no updated data were made available through the World Bank projects portal and the most limited information available do not contain any actual updates about the project except the amounts disbursed by the “COVID-19 Emergency Response”. Regarding the comparative country analysis, while establishing criteria for the comparative analysis was necessary, it also limited the size of data sets, sometimes leaving them too small to include. As such, Latin America, Europe and Central Asia were all excluded from the analysis as their data sets were too small, hence not allowing them to be representative for the whole region. It is not just because of the criteria, but also because some regions’ economic status allows them to go without loans when an emergency situation arises, as they do not occupy a lower income bracket like Egypt. Oftentimes, data sets were smaller because countries had later approval dates despite comparable socio-economic conditions. Reasons for loan progress lagging or advancing vary from one country to another. Countries having other sources of funding played a factor in the disbursement rate of loans. Some countries lagged behind in the PDO indicators progress because the need for implementing certain objectives did not arise, and so not accounting for these objectives could potentially skew the data. On the other hand, accounting for them inaccurately may lead to even more progressively skewed results. Some data sets for some regions were larger than others, South Asia, for example, was significantly smaller than both East Asia/Pacific and Africa, making it less reliable. Consequently, it held less weight in the comparative analysis. The measurement of progress through the PDO indicators in a uniform way not accounting for differences in progress within each objective, leaves us liable to having inflated or deflated representations. To combat this, it is accounted for in the further notes. Moreover, more broadly 5