of the country's population) at that time \[[@B13]-[@B15]\]. This was made possible by a notable contribution from SRs of the NGO sector. An earlier study documented that about 90 % of the sampled population knew about malaria terminology but there were also misconceptions about malaria causation and transmission \[[@B26]\]. This study found an improved community understanding of malaria and also documented that communities knew about the malaria programmes being implemented in their villages.

The implementation of the Global Fund funded programme also created partnership with the non-government sector as the implementing partners for the MoH in fighting HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria at country level. This study also revealed that funding from the Global Fund was an additional resource as demonstrated by the commitment of other donors, particularly the European Commissioncommunity knowledge, and the provision of free mosquito nets to the community. Reduction of malaria incidence in subsequent years was made possible through a sustained government programme in malaria control and also with funding and technical support from the Global Fund and other development partners. The rigidity of the Global Fund rules, weaknesses in project management, lack of human resources, the political instability in 2006, and lack of support of the wider donor community at country level affected the slow progress in the Global Fund grant implementation.

The important lessons to be learned from the first Global Fund grant are that clearly defined roles of participants involved, necessary infrastructure, human resources, knowledge on grant requirements and conditions, strong project management and coordination are keys to success in implementation. When