Call for global health-systems impact assessments

Using the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Delivery Decision Tool to Consider Transporting Medical Supplies via Drone

We developed an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) Delivery Decision Tool to help health system decision makers identify their transport challenges and explore the potential utility and impact of UAVs on the broader health system.

Austerity in Africa

Austerity across Africa has been operationalized through World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programs since the 1980s, later rebranded euphemistically as poverty reduction strategies in the late 1990s. Austerity’s constraints on public spending led donors to a “civil society” focus in which NGOs would fill gaps in basic social services created by public sector contraction. One consequence was large-scale redirection of growing foreign aid flows away from public services to international NGOs. Austerity in Africa coincides with the emergence of what some anthropologists call “audit cultures” among donors. Extraordinary data collection infrastructures are demanded from recipient organizations in the name of transparency. However, the Mozambique experience described here reveals that these intensive audit cultures serve to obscure the destructive effects of NGO proliferation on public health systems.

Comprehensive and integrated district health systems strengthening: the Rwanda Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) Partnership

Background

Nationally, health in Rwanda has been improving since 2000, with considerable improvement since 2005. Despite improvements, rural areas continue to lag behind urban sectors with regard to key health outcomes. Partners In Health (PIH) has been supporting the Rwanda Ministry of Health (MOH) in two rural districts in Rwanda since 2005. Since 2009, the MOH and PIH have spearheaded a health systems strengthening (HSS) intervention in these districts as part of the Rwanda Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) Partnership. The partnership is guided by the belief that HSS interventions should be comprehensive, integrated, responsive to local conditions, and address health care access, cost, and quality. The PHIT Partnership represents a collaboration between the MOH and PIH, with support from the National University of Rwanda School of Public Health, the National Institute of Statistics, Harvard Medical School, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Description of intervention

The PHIT Partnership’s health systems support aligns with the World Health Organization’s six health systems building blocks. HSS activities focus across all levels of the health system — community, health center, hospital, and district leadership — to improve health care access, quality, delivery, and health outcomes. Interventions are concentrated on three main areas: targeted support for health facilities, quality improvement initiatives, and a strengthened network of community health workers.

Evaluation design

The impact of activities will be assessed using population-level outcomes data collected through oversampling of the demographic and health survey (DHS) in the intervention districts. The overall impact evaluation is complemented by an analysis of trends in facility health care utilization. A comprehensive costing project captures the total expenditures and financial inputs of the health care system to determine the cost of systems improvement. Targeted evaluations and operational research pieces focus on specific programmatic components, supported by partnership-supported work to build in-country research capacity.

Discussion

Building on early successes, the work of the Rwanda PHIT Partnership approach to HSS has already seen noticeable increases in facility capacity and quality of care. The rigorous planned evaluation of the Partnership’s HSS activities will contribute to global knowledge about intervention methodology, cost, and population health impact.

Evaluating health systems strengthening interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: are we asking the right questions?

In recent years, there have been several calls for rigorous health policy and systems research to inform efforts to strengthen health systems (HS) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including the use of systems thinking concepts in designing and evaluating HS strengthening interventions. The objectives of this paper are to assess recent evaluations of HS strengthening interventions to examine the extent to which they ask a broader set of questions, and provide an appropriately comprehensive assessment of the effects of these interventions across the health system. A review of evaluations conducted in 2009-10 was performed to answer these questions. Out of 106 evaluations, less than half (43%) asked broad research questions to allow for a comprehensive assessment of the intervention's effects across multiple HS building blocks. Only half of the evaluations referred to a conceptual framework to guide their impact assessment. Overall, 24% and 9% conducted process and context evaluations, respectively, to answer the question of whether the intervention worked as intended, and if so, for whom, and under what circumstances. Almost half of the evaluations considered HS impact on one building block, while most interventions were complex targeting two or more building blocks. None incorporated evaluation designs that took into account the characteristics of complex adaptive systems such as non-linearity of effects or interactions between the HS building blocks. While we do not argue that all evaluations should be comprehensive, there is a need for more comprehensive evaluations of the wider range of the intervention's effects, when appropriate. Our findings suggest that the full range of barriers to more comprehensive evaluations need to be examined and, where appropriate, addressed. Possible barriers may include limited capacity, lack of funding, inadequate time frames, lack of demand from both researchers and research funders, or difficulties in undertaking this type of evaluation.

Perceptions of government knowledge and control over contributions of aid organizations and INGOs to health in Nepal: a qualitative study

Background

Almost 50% of the Nepali health budget is made up of international aid. International Non-Governmental Organizations working in the field of health are able to channel their funds directly to grass root level. During a 2010 conference, the Secretary of Population stated that the government has full knowledge and control over all funds and projects coming to Nepal. However, there are no documents to support this. The study aims to assess government and partner perceptions on whether Government of Nepal currently has full knowledge of contributions of international aid organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations to health in Nepal and to assess if the government is able to control all foreign contributions to fit the objectives of Second Long Term Health Plan (1997–2017).

Methods

A qualitative study was performed along with available literature review. Judgmental and snowball sampling led to 26 in depth interviews with key informants from the government, External Development Partners and International Non-Governmental Organizations. Results were triangulated based on source of data. Representatives of the Department of Health Services declined to be interviewed. Data collection was done until researchers felt data saturation had been reached with each group of key informants.

Results

While Ministry of Health and Population leads the sector wide approach that aims to integrate all donor and International Non-Governmental Organization contributions to health and direct them to the government’s priority areas, questions were raised around its capacity to do so. Similarly, informants questioned the extent to which Social Welfare Council was able to control all International Non-Governmental Organizations contributions. Political tumult, corruption in the government, lack of human resources in the government, lack of coordination between government bodies, convoluted bureaucracy, and unreliability of donor and International Non-Governmental Organization contributions were identified as the main reasons for difficulties in aid integration.

Conclusions

Despite its commitment to coordinate and control development assistance to the health sector, and its leadership position of the Sector Wide Approach, complete knowledge and effective coordination of all international contributions remains a challenge and is hampered by issues within the government as well as among External Development Partners and International Non-Governmental Organizations.

Rethinking health systems strengthening: key systems thinking tools and strategies for transformational change

While reaching consensus on future plans to address current global health challenges is far from easy, there is broad agreement that reductionist approaches that suggest a limited set of targeted interventions to improve health around the world are inadequate. We argue that a comprehensive systems perspective should guide health practice, education, research and policy. We propose key 'systems thinking' tools and strategies that have the potential for transformational change in health systems. Three overarching themes span these tools and strategies: collaboration across disciplines, sectors and organizations; ongoing, iterative learning; and transformational leadership. The proposed tools and strategies in this paper can be applied, in varying degrees, to every organization within health systems, from families and communities to national ministries of health. While our categorization is necessarily incomplete, this initial effort will provide a valuable contribution to the health systems strengthening debate, as the need for a more systemic, rigorous perspective in health has never been greater.

The interface between health systems and vertical programmes in Francophone Africa: the managers' perceptions

OBJECTIVE

To explores the interface between vertical programmes (VPs) and general health services (GHS) in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

Using semi-structured interviews, we analysed the perceptions of a selection of experienced mid-level managers of health systems and of VP originating in francophone Africa on the nature and quality of this interface.

RESULTS

The respondents acknowledged that VPs lead to both positive and negative effects on the functioning of GHS. The overall result, however, cannot be viewed as a simple summation of the positive effects possibly compensating for the negative ones. Indeed, some of the negative effects have a profound impact on the management and operation of the health care delivery system and may undermine the long-term institutional capacity of the general health systems. The quality and the nature of the interface between VP and GHS strongly vary in time, between settings and programmes.

CONCLUSION

We argue for more systematic monitoring of the interface between VP and GHS, so as to identify and address, in a timely manner, significant disruptive effects and deficiencies in a perspective of systemic capacity building of health systems.

Toward a consensus on guiding principles for health systems strengthening

Based upon a review of the literature, Robert Chad Swanson and colleagues present a set of guiding principles for health systems strengthening.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a global perspective

CONTEXT

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) requires significant infrastructure. Little is known about HSCT use and the factors associated with it on a global level.

OBJECTIVES

To determine current use of HSCT to assess differences in its application and to explore associations of macroeconomic factors with transplant rates on a global level.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Retrospective survey study of patients receiving allogeneic and autologous HSCTs for 2006 collected by 1327 centers in 71 participating countries of the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. The regional areas used herein are (1) the Americas (the corresponding World Health Organization regions are North and South America); (2) Asia (Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific Region, which includes Australia and New Zealand); (3) Europe (includes Turkey and Israel); and (4) the Eastern Mediterranean and Africa.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Transplant rates (number of HSCTs per 10 million inhabitants) by indication, donor type, and country; description of main differences in HSCT use; and macroeconomic factors of reporting countries associated with HSCT rates.

RESULTS

There were 50 417 first HSCTs; 21 516 allogeneic (43%) and 28 901 autologous (57%). The median HSCT rates varied between regions and countries from 48.5 (range, 2.5-505.4) in the Americas, 184 (range, 0.6-488.5) in Asia, 268.9 (range, 5.7-792.1) in Europe, and 47.7 (range, 2.8-95.3) in the Eastern Mediterranean and Africa. No HSCTs were performed in countries with less than 300,000 inhabitants, smaller than 960 km(2), or having less than US $680 gross national income per capita. Use of allogeneic or autologous HSCT, unrelated or family donors for allogeneic HSCT, and proportions of disease indications varied significantly between countries and regions. In linear regression analyses, government health care expenditures (r(2) = 77.33), HSCT team density (indicates the number of transplant teams per 1 million inhabitants; r(2) = 76.28), human development index (r(2) = 74.36), and gross national income per capita (r(2) = 74.04) showed the highest associations with HSCT rates.

CONCLUSION

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is used for a broad spectrum of indications worldwide, but most frequently in countries with higher gross national incomes, higher governmental health care expenditures, and higher team densities.