Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation

The Economic Rationale for Healthcare Reform

Healthcare reform is analyzed from an economic perspective. First, the economic rationale for providing access to healthcare lies in the benefit from knowing that those without means would be able to access health services. However, this does not explain why they should be entitled to the same quality of service. In practice, even in high-income countries, patients who are willing and able to pay tend to have better access to specialist services. Secondly, the division of labor has not increased efficiency in healthcare because health services are provided by professionals who have autonomy. However, efficiency can be increased by standardizing the process with clinical pathways and shifting service delivery from physicians to nurses and technicians. Thirdly, cost-effectiveness analysis is being used to making decisions on listing pharmaceutical products in the national formulary, but pricing and prescribing have continued to be made idiosyncratically. Lastly, Japan's healthcare system is analyzed based on this framework.

Relational community engagement within health interventions at varied outcome scales

Relational community engagement may be a powerful approach with multiple health outcomes. Relational community engagement has the potential to promote health and involves collaborative efforts between multiple stakeholders. The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted the centrality of community engagement in health crises. Challenges continue to persist, however, in genuinely engaging and empowering communities for better health outcomes. Understanding the multi-level and complex relational nature of community engagement is essential to comprehend its influence on health at micro, meso, and macro scales of influence. The purpose of this narrative review was to synthesize the literature on relational community engagement within varied health interventions at the three major system levels (micro, meso, and macro) to support the development of future research agendas. At the micro level, relational community engagement interventions demonstrated a range of positive outcomes including: increased sense of control, satisfaction, positive behavior, improved knowledge, behavior change, empowerment, and overall positive health and social outcomes. At the meso level, relational community engagement interventions resulted in increased trust between stakeholders and groups/teams, and increased community senses of ownership of interventions, decisions, structures. At the macro level, relational community engagement interventions influenced broader societal factors and had positive impacts on health policy and governance including collaboration between sectors and communities as well as increased access to services. The review highlights the potential versatility and effectiveness of interventions that prioritize relationships, health promotion, and social change while underscoring the significance of holistic and community-centered approaches in addressing diverse health and social challenges.

Development of an adaptation framework to implement a new professional pharmacy service (PPS) to a new environment

The effective provision of professional pharmacy services is critical to support the delivery of primary health care. Structured frameworks and theoretical strategies are required to facilitate successful service implementation processes, outcomes and sustainability. This commentary discusses the considerations of what framework (adoption versus adaptation) would be suitable when implementing a new professional pharmacy service to a new environment. Utilizing Minor Ailments Services (MASs) as an exemplar as a professional pharmacy service case study, the research that underpinned these considerations enabled the development of a sequential, phased framework. There is the potential to utilize this framework for future evolving professional pharmacy services in the new setting.

Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of guidance on approaches to formulary management and funding for high-cost drugs and therapeutics by individual healthcare institutions. The objective of this review was to assess institutional approaches to resource allocation for such therapeutics, with a particular focus on paediatric and rare disease populations.

METHODS

A search of Embase and MEDLINE was conducted for studies relevant to decision-making for off-formulary, high-cost drugs and therapeutics. Abstracts were evaluated for inclusion based on the Simple Multiple-Attribute Rating Techniques (SMART) criteria. A framework of 30 topics across 4 categories was used to guide data extraction and was based on findings from the initial abstract review and previous health technology assessment (HTA) publications. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted using QSR NVivo 12 software.

RESULTS

A total of 168 studies were included for analysis. Only 4 (2%) focused on paediatrics, while 21 (12%) centred on adults and the remainder (85%) did not specify. Thirty-two (19%) studies discussed the importance of high-cost therapeutics and 34 (23%) focused on rare/orphan drugs. Five themes were identified as being relevant to institutional decision-making for high-cost therapeutics: institutional strategy, substantive criteria, procedural considerations, guiding principles and frameworks, and operational activities. Each of these themes encompassed several sub-themes and was complemented by a sixth category specific to paediatrics and rare diseases.

CONCLUSION

The rising cost of novel drugs and therapeutics underscores the need for robust, evidence-based, and ethically defensible decision-making processes for health technology funding, particularly at the hospital level. Our study highlights practices and themes to aid decision-makers in thinking critically about institutional, substantive, procedural, and operational considerations in support of legitimate decisions about institutional funding of high-cost drugs and therapeutics, as well as opportunities and challenges that exist for paediatric and rare disease populations.

Current rates of purchasing of antibiotics without a prescription across sub-Saharan Africa; rationale and potential programmes to reduce inappropriate dispensing and resistance

INTRODUCTION

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global concern. Currently, the greatest mortality due to AMR is in Africa. A key driver continues to be high levels of dispensing of antibiotics without a prescription.

AREAS COVERED

A need to document current rates of dispensing, their rationale and potential ways forward including antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs). A narrative review was undertaken. The highest rates of antibiotic purchasing were in Eritrea (up to 89.2% of antibiotics dispensed), Ethiopia (up to 87.9%), Nigeria (up to 86.5%), Tanzania (up to 92.3%) and Zambia (up to 100% of pharmacies dispensing antibiotics without a prescription). However, considerable variation was seen with no dispensing in a minority of countries and situations. Key drivers of self-purchasing included high co-payment levels for physician consultations and antibiotic costs, travel costs, convenience of pharmacies, patient requests, limited knowledge of antibiotics and AMR and weak enforcement. ASPs have been introduced in some African countries along with quality targets to reduce inappropriate dispensing, centering on educating pharmacists and patients.

EXPERT OPINION

ASP activities need accelerating among community pharmacies alongside quality targets, with greater monitoring of pharmacists' activities to reduce inappropriate dispensing. Such activities, alongside educating patients and healthcare professionals, should enhance appropriate dispensing of antibiotics and reduce AMR.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review

Health care budgets in high-income countries are having issues coping with unsustainable growth in demand, particularly in the hospital setting. Despite this, implementing tools systematising priority setting and resource allocation decisions has been challenging. This study answers two questions: (1) what are the barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting tools in the hospital setting of high-income countries? and (2) what is their fidelity? A systematic review using the Cochrane methods was conducted including studies of hospital-related priority setting tools reporting barriers or facilitators for implementation, published after the year 2000. Barriers and facilitators were classified using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity was assessed using priority setting tool's standards. Out of thirty studies, ten reported program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), twelve multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), six health technology assessment (HTA) related frameworks, and two, an ad hoc tool. Barriers and facilitators were outlined across all CFIR domains. Implementation factors not frequently observed, such as 'evidence of previous successful tool application', 'knowledge and beliefs about the intervention' or 'external policy and incentives' were reported. Conversely, some constructs did not yield any barrier or facilitator including 'intervention source' or 'peer pressure'. PBMA studies satisfied the fidelity criteria between 86% and 100%, for MCDA it varied between 36% and 100%, and for HTA it was between 27% and 80%. However, fidelity was not related to implementation. This study is the first to use an implementation science approach. Results represent the starting point for organisations wishing to use priority setting tools in the hospital setting by providing an overview of barriers and facilitators. These factors can be used to assess readiness for implementation or to serve as the foundation for process evaluations. Through our findings, we aim to improve the uptake of priority setting tools and support their sustainable use.

Managing TQM's soft side: an explorative study of social care multiservice organizations

Purpose

This paper explores total quality management (TQM) soft domain efficacy in social care organizations to determine the extent to which an organization's project success may stem from soft TQM critical success factors (CSFs).

Design/methodology/approach

Non-structured interviews were conducted with 16 managers overseeing the prosthetic device regeneration project of the Italian local health unit (located in Salerno) to explore which soft factors could contribute to the success of a social care multifunctional organization.

Findings

Organizations' handling of certain projects, such as pivoting on soft TQM issues, may allow them to be configured as multiservice organizations. Therefore, a conceptual model of a multiservice social care organization is proposed.

Practical implications

From a managerial perspective, this study presents an interesting success case of a multiservice social care organization with a total annual expenditure of €20 million on prosthetic assistance. Preliminary data show a 13% reduction in public expenditure for Salerno's local health unit via a refurbishment project.

Originality/value

The paper contributes to the soft TQM literature debate: although Italian local health professionals appear aware of soft TQM issues' implementation and consciously apply them in their organization and projects, this occurs more with specific CSFs emerging from the literature. Therefore, this article paves the way for further quantitative and theoretical investigations on the adoption of TQM soft issues in social care organizations' performance measurement.

A Gap in Mission: The Disparate Missions of Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals

Objective

The social contract mandates that in return for the government-funded labor of residents and fellows, the medical profession trains, to the best of its ability, the physicians of our future. This contract obligates graduate medical education (GME) to utilize all available information to create an optimal learning environment for its trainees. Business research has determined that a clearly defined mission statement is associated with improved employee engagement, retention, and wellness. Given that GME trainees are situated at the intersection of at least two institutions, each with its own separate mission, trainees could potentially be hindered by incongruent missions in the learning environment. The literature on mission statements has analyzed medical schools and hospitals separately; however, investigations comparing the statements of these affiliated institutions have not been conducted. Therefore, we plan to compare the content and assess the consistency of mission statements from affiliated medical schools and hospitals to determine if incongruencies exist.

Methods

In 2023, the mission statements from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) medical schools and affiliated teaching hospitals (n = 163) were aggregated from their public websites. The content of each mission statement was thematically analyzed to assess variation.

Results

According to content analysis of the mission statements from 163 AAMC medical school members and affiliated teaching hospitals, less than half of their top priorities are shared by their affiliated hospitals (45%). Additionally, themes of diversity, religion, and global care were found to be contrasting priorities between affiliated institutions.

Conclusion

Given the precedence within the business and the observed discrepancies in mission, further research is needed to determine whether collaborating medical schools and hospitals could provide a more favorable graduate training environment by uniting their priorities and identifying shared goals.

A qualitative evaluation of priority-setting by the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel in Kenya

Kenya's Ministry of Health established the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel (HBPAP) in 2018 to develop a benefits package for universal health coverage. This study evaluated HBPAP's process for developing the benefits package against the normative procedural (acceptable way of doing things) and outcome (acceptable consequences) conditions of an ideal healthcare priority-setting process as outlined in the study's conceptual framework. We conducted a qualitative case study using in-depth interviews with national-level respondents (n = 20) and document reviews. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. HBPAP's process partially fulfilled the procedural and outcome conditions of the study's evaluative framework. Concerning the procedural conditions, transparency and publicity were partially met and were limited by the lack of publication of HBPAP's report. While HBPAP used explicit and evidence-based priority-setting criteria, challenges included lack of primary data and local cost-effectiveness threshold, weak health information systems, short timelines and political interference. While a wide range of stakeholders were engaged, this was limited by short timelines and inadequate financial resources. Empowerment of non-HBPAP members was limited by their inadequate technical knowledge and experience in priority-setting. Finally, appeals and revisions were limited by short timelines and lack of implementation of the proposed benefits package. Concerning the outcome conditions, stakeholder understanding was limited by the technical nature of the process and short timelines, while stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction were limited by lack of transparency. HBPAP's benefits package was not implemented due to stakeholder interests and opposition. Priority-setting processes for benefits package development in Kenya could be improved by publicizing the outcome of the process, allocating adequate time and financial resources, strengthening health information systems, generating local evidence and enhancing stakeholder awareness and engagement to increase their empowerment, understanding and acceptance of the process. Managing politics and stakeholder interests is key in enhancing the success of priority-setting processes.

Implementation of recommendations in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: considerations for development and uptake

A clinical guideline is a document with the aim of guiding decisions based on evidence regarding diagnosis, management and treatment in specific areas of healthcare. Specific to rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), adherence to clinical guidelines recommendations impacts the outcomes of people with these diseases. However, currently, the implementation of recommendations is less than optimal in rheumatology.The WHO has described the implementation of evidence-based recommendations as one of the greatest challenges facing the global health community and has identified the importance of scaling up these recommendations. But closing the evidence-to-practice gap is often complex, time-consuming and difficult. In this context, the implementation science offers a framework to overcome this scenario.This article describes the principles of implementation science to facilitate and optimise the implementation of clinical recommendations in RMDs. Embedding implementation science methods and techniques into recommendation development and daily practice can help maximise the likelihood that implementation is successful in improving the quality of healthcare and healthcare services.

The development of Afghanistan's Integrated Package of Essential Health Services: Evidence, expertise and ethics in a priority setting process

Health systems in fragile states need to respond to shifting demographics, burden of disease and socio-economic circumstances in the revision of their health service packages. This entails making difficult decisions about what is and is not included therein, especially in resource-constrained settings offering or striving for universal health coverage. In this paper we turn the lens on the 2017-2021 development of Afghanistan's Integrated Package of Essential Health Services (IPEHS) to analyse the dynamics of the priority setting process and the role and value of evidence. Using participant observation of meetings and interviews with 25 expert participants, we conducted a qualitative study of the consultation process aimed at examining the characteristics of its technical, socio-cultural and organisational aspects, in particular data use and expert input, and how they influenced how evidence was discussed, taken up, and used (or not used) in the process. Our analysis proposes that the particular dynamics shaped by the context, information landscape and expert input shaped and operationalized knowledge sharing and its application in such a way to constitute a sort of "vernacular evidence". Our findings underline the importance of paying attention to the constellation of the priority setting processes in order to contribute to an ethical allocation of resources, particularly in contexts of resource scarcity and humanitarian need.

Public legitimacy of healthcare resource allocation committees: lessons learned from assessing an Israeli case study

Background

The National Health Insurance Law enacted in 1995 stipulates a list of health services to which all Israeli residents are entitled. For the past 20 years, the list has been updated annually, as a function of a predetermined budget, according to recommendations from the Public National Advisory Committee (PNAC), which evaluates and prioritizes candidate technologies. We assessed the legitimacy of this resource-allocation process as reflected in Israeli public discourse and its congruence with the accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework.

Methods

A qualitative analysis of public discourse documents (articles in the print media, court rulings and parliamentary debates (N = 119) was conducted to assess the perceived legitimacy by the Israeli public of the PNAC. Further content analysis of these documents and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (N = 70) revealed the mainstays and threats to its legitimacy. Based on these data sources, on governmental documents specifying PNAC's procedures, and on data from participant observations, we assessed its congruence with A4R’s four conditions: publicity, relevance, revision and appeals, regulation.

Results

The PNAC enjoys ongoing support for its legitimacy in Israeli public discourse, which stem from its perceived professional focus and transparency. These strengths are consistent with the A4R’s emphasis on the publicity and the relevance conditions. The three major threats to PNAC's legitimacy pertain to: (1) the composition of the committee; (2) its operating procedures; (3) its guiding principles. These perceived shortcomings are also consistent with incongruencies between PNAC's work model and A4R. These findings thus further support the empirical validity of the A4R.

Conclusion

The analysis of the fit between the PNAC and A4R points to refinements in all four conditions that could make the A4R a more precise evaluative framework. Concurrently, it highlights areas that the PNAC should improve to increase its legitimacy, such as incorporating cost-effectiveness analyses and including patient representatives in the decision-making process.

Hebrew and Arabic abstracts for this article are available as an additional file.

[Quality assurance and improvement in healthcare: instruments and perspectives]

In the German statutory health insurance system, quality healthcare is an imperative - healthcare must correspond to current medical knowledge. The central decision-making body, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), uses directives to regulate quality standards and instruments to ensure compliance. The Institute for Quality Assurance and Transparency in Health Care (IQTIG) supports the G‑BA in this task with independent scientific recommendations. A central task of the institute is the development of quality indicators based on billing data, patient records, and patient surveys.With regard to instruments for the improvement of quality, the IQTIG distinguishes between improvement instruments, instruments based on selection decisions, and instruments based on incentives for providers. Quality improvement requires quality management and intrinsic motivation on the part of the providers. However, due to perverse incentives, intrinsic motivation and thus quality improvement alone are not always sufficient and must be supplemented by extrinsic incentives and other instruments. In particular, instruments enabling quality-oriented physician and hospital choice have not yet been implemented in Germany. The quality information required to enable patients to make such choices does not yet exist and should be based on billing data and patient surveys. Further, such quality information should be presented as simply and understandably as possible on online comparison platforms.To ensure high-quality healthcare, the various instruments for improving quality must be coordinated with one another and aligned with a system of healthcare targets. Such a system of overarching healthcare targets allows the limited resources to be focused on those areas in which the need for action is greatest.

Health system efficiency in OECD countries: dynamic network DEA approach

BACKGROUND

In recent years, measuring and evaluating the efficiency of health systems has been explored in the context of seeking resources to ensure the sustainability of 'countries' health and social systems and addressing various crises in the health sector. The study aims to quantify and compare the efficiency of OECD health systems in 2000, 2008, and 2016. The contribution to research in the field of efficiency in the healthcare system can be seen in the application of Dynamic Network Data Envelopment Analysis (DNDEA), which help us to analyse not only the overall efficiency of the healthcare system but analyse the overall efficiency as the result of the efficiencies of individual interconnected areas (public and medical care area). By applying the DNDEA model, we can realise the analysis not only within one year, but we can find out if the measures and improvements taken in the healthcare sector have a positive impact on its efficiency in a later period (eight-year interval).

METHODS

The analysis focuses on assessing the efficiency of the health systems of OECD countries over three periods: 2000, 2008, and 2016. Data for this study were derived from the existing OECD database, which provides aggregated data on OECD countries on a comparable basis. In this way, it was possible to compare different countries whose national health statistics may have their characteristics. The input-oriented Dynamic Network Data Envelopment Analysis model was used for data processing. The efficiency of OECD health systems has been analysed and evaluated comprehensively and also separately in two divisions: public health sub-division and medical care sub-division. The analysis combines the application of conventional and unconventional methods of measuring efficiency in the health sector.

RESULTS

The results for the public health sub-division, medical care sub-division and overall health system for OECD countries under the assumption of constant returns to scale indicate that the average overall efficiency was 0.8801 in 2000, 0.8807 in 2008 and 0.8472 in 2016. The results of the input-oriented model with the assumption of constant returns to scale point to the overall average efficiency of health systems at the level of 0.8693 during the period. According to the Malmquist Index results, the OECD countries improved the efficiency over the years, with performance improvements of 19% in the public health division and 8% in the medical care division.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study are beneficial for health policymakers to assess and compare health systems in countries and to develop strategic national and regional health plans. Similarly, the result will support the development of international benchmarks in this area. The issue of health efficiency is an intriguing one that could be usefully explored in further research. A greater focus on combining non-parametric and parametric models could produce interesting findings for further research. The consistency in the publication and updating of the data on health statistics would help us establish a greater degree of accuracy.

Optima TB: A tool to help optimally allocate tuberculosis spending

Approximately 85% of tuberculosis (TB) related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries where health resources are scarce. Effective priority setting is required to maximise the impact of limited budgets. The Optima TB tool has been developed to support analytical capacity and inform evidence-based priority setting processes for TB health benefits package design. This paper outlines the Optima TB framework and how it was applied in Belarus, an upper-middle income country in Eastern Europe with a relatively high burden of TB. Optima TB is a population-based disease transmission model, with programmatic cost functions and an optimisation algorithm. Modelled populations include age-differentiated general populations and higher-risk populations such as people living with HIV. Populations and prospective interventions are defined in consultation with local stakeholders. In partnership with the latter, demographic, epidemiological, programmatic, as well as cost and spending data for these populations and interventions are then collated. An optimisation analysis of TB spending was conducted in Belarus, using program objectives and constraints defined in collaboration with local stakeholders, which included experts, decision makers, funders and organisations involved in service delivery, support and technical assistance. These analyses show that it is possible to improve health impact by redistributing current TB spending in Belarus. Specifically, shifting funding from inpatient- to outpatient-focused care models, and from mass screening to active case finding strategies, could reduce TB prevalence and mortality by up to 45% and 50%, respectively, by 2035. In addition, an optimised allocation of TB spending could lead to a reduction in drug-resistant TB infections by 40% over this period. This would support progress towards national TB targets without additional financial resources. The case study in Belarus demonstrates how reallocations of spending across existing and new interventions could have a substantial impact on TB outcomes. This highlights the potential for Optima TB and similar modelling tools to support evidence-based priority setting.

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a leading global cause of death and morbidity, and 85% of deaths occur in countries where resources for TB care and control are limited. Many countries cannot finance all TB interventions or technologies, which means difficult decisions on what to prioritise and publically finance. Modelling tools can help decision-makers set priorities based on evidence, in a systematic and transparent way. This study presents Optima TB, a tool that estimates which allocations of spending across interventions will most likely maximise specified objectives—such as minimising TB deaths, prevalence and incidence. In partnership with local decision-makers and stakeholders, Optima TB was applied in Belarus. Recommendations from the model findings include focussing investment on outpatient rather than inpatient care and actively finding people with TB (e.g. through contact tracing) rather than mass testing of the population. The recommended reallocations of spending could reduce TB prevalence and deaths by up to 45% and 50%, respectively, by 2035 for the same amount of spending. Key stakeholders were engaged throughout the analysis and findings and uncertainty around the results were clearly communicated with decision-makers. The timeliness of the results helped inform national dialogue on TB care reform, among other key policy discussions.

Stakeholder engagement in the health policy process in a low income country: a qualitative study of stakeholder perceptions of the challenges to effective inclusion in Malawi

BACKGROUND

Inclusive engagement in healthcare policies and decision-making is essential to address the needs of patients and communities, reduce health inequities and increase the accountability of the government. In low income countries such as Malawi, with significant health challenges, stakeholder inclusion is particularly important to improve performance and service delivery. The 2017 National Health Plan II (NHP II) and accompanying Health Sector Strategic Plan II (HSSP II) aimed to improve the functioning of the healthcare system. The Ministry of Health for Malawi intended to involve all key health sector stakeholders in their development. This study explores the extent of stakeholder engagement in the health policy process through local level stakeholders' perceptions of their involvement in the NHP II and HSSP II.

METHODS

A qualitative study design was used. Interviews were conducted with 19 representatives of organisations operating at the local level, such as CSOs and local government. Open questions were asked about experiences and perceptions of the development of the NHP II and HSSP II. Inductive content analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Stakeholders perceived barriers to inclusive and meaningful engagement in the health policy process. Five categories were identified: tokenistic involvement; stakeholder hierarchy; mutual distrust; preferred stakeholders; no culture of engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Serious challenges to the meaningful and equitable engagement of local level stakeholder groups in the health policy process were identified. Issues of trust, accountability and hierarchy in donor-citizen-government relations must be addressed to support stakeholder engagement. Engagement must go beyond tokenism to embed a range of stakeholders in the process with feedback mechanisms to ensure impact from their contributions. Local level stakeholders can be empowered to advocate for and participate in consultation exercises alongside greater top-down efforts to engage stakeholders via diverse and inclusive methods. These issues are not unique to Malawi or to health policy-making.

Priority-setting to integrate sexual and reproductive health into universal health coverage: the case of Malaysia

Despite increasing calls to integrate and prioritise sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in universal health coverage (UHC) processes, several SRH services have remained a low priority in countries’ UHC plans. This study aims to understand the priority-setting process of SRH interventions in the context of UHC, drawing on the Malaysian experience. A realist evaluation framework was adopted to examine the priority-setting process for three SRH tracer interventions: pregnancy, safe delivery and post-natal care; gender-based violence (GBV) services; and abortion-related services. The study used a qualitative multi-method design, including a literature and document review, and 20 in-depth key informant interviews, to explore the context–mechanism–outcome configurations that influenced and explained the priority-setting process. Four key advocacy strategies were identified for the effective prioritisation of SRH services, namely: (1) generating public demand and social support, (2) linking SRH issues with public agendas or international commitments, (3) engaging champions that are internal and external to the public health sector, and (4) reframing SRH issues as public health issues. While these strategies successfully triggered mechanisms, such as mutual understanding and increased buy-in of policymakers to prioritise SRH services, the level and extent of prioritisation was affected by both inner and outer contextual factors, in particular the socio-cultural and political context. Priority-setting is a political decision-making process that reflects societal values and norms. Efforts to integrate SRH services in UHC processes need both to make technical arguments and to find strategies to overcome barriers related to societal values (including certain socio-cultural and religious norms). This is particularly important for sensitive SRH services, like GBV and safe abortion, and for certain populations.

Variation in the use of percutaneous coronary interventions among older patients with acute coronary syndromes: a multilevel study in Fukuoka, Japan

BACKGROUND

Variation in health care delivery among regions and hospitals has been observed worldwide and reported to have resulted in health inequalities. Regional variation of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was previously reported in Japan. This study aimed to assess the small-area and hospital-level variations and to examine the influence of patient and hospital characteristics on the use of PCI.

METHODS

Data provided by the Fukuoka Prefecture Latter-stage Elderly Insurance Association was used. There were 11,821 patients aged ≥65 years with acute coronary syndromes who were identified from 2015 to 2017. Three-level multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to quantify the small-area and hospital variations, as well as, to identify the determinants of PCI use.

RESULTS

The results showed significant variation (δ² = 0.744) and increased PCI use (MOR = 2.425) at the hospital level. After controlling patient- and hospital-level characteristics, a large proportional change in cluster variance was found at the hospital level (PCV 14.7%). Fixed-effect estimation results showed that females, patients aged ≥80 years old, hypertension and dyslipidemia had significant association with the use of PCI. Hospitals with high physician density had a significantly positive relationship with PCI use.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving care in hospitals located in small areas have equitable access to PCI. Hospital-level variation might be originated from the oversupply of physicians. A balanced number of physicians and beds should be taken into consideration during healthcare allocation. A treatment process guideline on PCI targeting older patients is also needed to ensure a more equitable access for healthcare resources.

Priority Setting in the Polish Health Care System According to Patients' Perspective

Identification of health priorities is concerned with equitable distribution of resources and is an important part of strategic planning in the health care system. The aim of this article is to describe health priorities in the Polish health care system from the patients’ perspective. The study included 533 patients hospitalized in the Lodz region. The average age of the respondents was 48.5 years and one third (36.6%) had university education. Most of the respondents (64.9%) negatively assessed the functioning of the health care system in Poland. Most of them claimed the following aspects require improvements: financing health services (85.8%), determining priorities in health care (80.3%), the role of health insurance (80.3%), and medical education (70.8%). Over 70% of the respondents agreed the role of politicians in designing and implementing health system reforms should be limited. The fact that the respondents so negatively assessed the Polish health care system implies there is a need for full discussion on redefining health priorities.

Accountability in medical education from theory to practice Tabriz 2018 statement: A step towards the implementation of this social necessity

Background: To implement the education reform package on accountability in medical education, the Education Development Center (EDC) of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences has held the first national conference on accountability in medical education, and the present statement is the result of scientific interactions and exchanges in the conference.

Methods: For implementation of the accountability in medical education, there was a need to inform faculty members and other stakeholders about their responsibility in education and health care needs. The provision of such platform was provided by holding a specialized conference on accountability in medical education by Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Steps of preparing the draft version of the Tabriz 2018 Statement were as follow: Formation the scientific committee; Division of the responsibility for drafting the statement between various workgroups; and Preparation and primary approval of the draft of Tabriz 2018 Statement.

Results: Steps of preparing the draft version of the Tabriz 2018 Statement were: Formation of the scientific committee, Division of the responsibility for drafting the statement between the various workgroups and Preparation and primary approval of the draft of Tabriz 2018 Statement.

Conclusion: Establishing an educational accreditation model and reviewing accreditation standards based on social accountability can be an effective step to strengthen accountability towards community needs.

A more responsive, multi-pronged strategy is needed to strengthen HIV healthcare for men who have sex with men in a decentralized health system: qualitative insights of a case study in the Kenyan coast

INTRODUCTION

HIV healthcare services for men who have sex with men (MSM) in Kenya have not been openly provided because of persistent stigma and lack of healthcare capacity within Kenya's decentralized health sector. Building on an evaluation of a developed online MSM sensitivity training programme offered to East and South African healthcare providers, this study assessed views and responses to strengthen HIV healthcare services for MSM in Kenya.

METHODS

The study was conducted between January and July 2017 in Kilifi County, coastal Kenya. Seventeen policymakers participated in an in-depth interview and 59 stakeholders, who were purposively selected from three key groups (i.e. healthcare providers, implementing partners and members of MSM-led community-based organizations) took part in eight focus group discussions. Discussions aimed to understand gaps in service provision to MSM from different perspectives, to identify potential misconceptions, and to explore opportunities to improve MSM HIV healthcare services. Interviews and focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants' responses revealed that all key groups navigated diverse challenges related to MSM HIV health services. Specific challenges included priority-setting by county government staff; preparedness of leadership and management on MSM HIV issues at the facility level; data reporting at the implementation level and advocacy for MSM health equity. Strong power inequities were observed between policy leadership, healthcare providers and MSM, with MSM feeling blamed for their sexual orientation. MSM agency, as expressed in their actions to access HIV services, was significantly constrained by county context, but can potentially be improved by political will, professional support and a human rights approach.

CONCLUSIONS

To strengthen HIV healthcare for MSM within a decentralized Kenyan health system, a more responsive, multi-pronged strategy adaptable and relevant to MSM's healthcare needs is required. Continued engagement with policy leadership, collaboration with health facilities, and partnerships with different community stakeholders are critical to improve HIV healthcare services for MSM.

How do decision-makers use evidence in community health policy and financing decisions? A qualitative study and conceptual framework in four African countries

Various investments could help countries deliver on the universal health coverage (UHC) goals set by the global community; community health is a pillar of many national strategies towards UHC. Yet despite resource mobilization towards this end, little is known about the potential costs and value of these investments, as well as how evidence on the same would be used in related decisions. This qualitative study was conducted to understand the use of evidence in policy and financing decisions for large-scale community health programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Through key informant interviews with 43 respondents in countries with community health embedded in national UHC strategies (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique) and at global institutions, we investigated evidence use in community health financing and policy decision-making, as well as evidentiary needs related to community health data for decision-making. We found that evidence use is limited at all levels, in part due to a perceived lack of high-quality, relevant evidence. This perception stems from two main areas: first, desire for local evidence that reflects the context, and second, much existing economic evidence does not deal with what decision-makers value when it comes to community health systems-i.e. coverage and (to a lesser extent) quality. Beyond the evidence gap, there is limited capacity to assess and use the evidence. Elected officials also face political challenges to disinvestment as well as structural obstacles to evidence use, including the outsized influence of donor priorities. Evaluation data must to speak to decision-maker interests and constraints more directly, alongside financiers of community health providing explicit guidance and support on the role of evidence use in decision-making, empowering national decision-makers. Improved data quality, increased relevance of evidence and capacity for evidence use can drive improved efficiency of financing and evidence-based policymaking.

Priority setting for health system strengthening in low income countries. A qualitative case study illustrating the complexities

Health systems are critical to the realisation of Universal Health Coverage. There has been insufficient attention to the evaluation of priority setting for health system strengthening within low income countries, including evaluation of the local capacity to implement priorities. This study evaluated the extent to which health system strengthening was prioritized in Uganda. The Kapiriri & Martin framework was used to evaluate health system priority setting from 2005-2015. A document analysis was triangulated with interview data (n = 67) from global, national and subnational stakeholders and analysed using content analysis. Health system strengthening was perceived to be circumvented by a lack of resources as well as influential actors with disease focused, rather than system-oriented, interests. There were defined processes with explicit criteria for identifying priorities and evidence was highly valued. But sub-optimal transparency and weak accountability often compromised the integrity of priority setting and contributed to stalling progress on health system strengthening and achieving health system outcomes. The strengths in the current planning processes should be harnessed. In addition, a systematic approach to priority setting, potentially through the establishment of an independent body, and stronger oversight mechanisms, would strengthen health system planning in this setting.

Is evidence-informed urban health planning a myth or reality? Lessons from a qualitative assessment in three Asian cities

City governments are well-positioned to effectively address urban health challenges in the context of rapid urbanization in Asia. They require good quality and timely evidence to inform their planning decisions. In this article, we report our analyses of degree of data-informed urban health planning from three Asian cities: Dhaka, Hanoi and Pokhara. Our theoretical framework stems from conceptualizations of evidence-informed policymaking, health planning and policy analysis, and includes: (1) key actors, (2) approaches to developing and implementing urban health plans, (3) characteristics of the data itself. We collected qualitative data between August 2017 and October 2018 using: in-depth interviews with key actors, document review and observations of planning events. Framework approach guided the data analysis. Health is one of competing priorities with multiple plans being produced within each city, using combinations of top-down, bottom-up and fragmented planning approaches. Mostly data from government information systems are used, which were perceived as good quality though often omits the urban poor and migrants. Key common influences on data use include constrained resources and limitations of current planning approaches, alongside data duplication and limited co-ordination within Dhaka's pluralistic system, limited opportunities for data use in Hanoi and inadequate and incomplete data in Pokhara. City governments have the potential to act as a hub for multi-sectoral planning. Our results highlight the tensions this brings, with health receiving less attention than other sector priorities. A key emerging issue is that data on the most marginalized urban poor and migrants are largely unavailable. Feasible improvements to evidence-informed urban health planning include increasing availability and quality of data particularly on the urban poor, aligning different planning processes, introducing clearer mechanisms for data use, working within the current systemic opportunities and enhancing participation of local communities in urban health planning.

Criteria Used for Priority-Setting for Public Health Resource Allocation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify criteria being used for priority setting for resource allocation decisions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Furthermore, the included studies were analyzed from a policy perspective to understand priority setting processes in these countries.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in PubMed, Embase, Econlit, and Cochrane databases, supplemented with pre-identified Web sites and bibliographic searches of relevant papers. Quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken. The review protocol is registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO CRD42017068371.

RESULTS

Of 16,412 records screened by title and abstract, 112 papers were identified for full text screening and 44 studies were included in the final analysis. At an overall level, cost-effectiveness 52 percent (n = 22) and health benefits 45 percent (n = 19) were the most cited criteria used for priority setting for public health resource allocation. Inter-region (LMICs) and between various approaches (like health technology assessment, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), accountability for reasonableness (AFR) variations among criteria were also noted. Our review found that MCDA approach was more frequently used in upper middle-income countries and AFR in lower-income countries for priority setting in health. Policy makers were the most frequently consulted stakeholders in all regions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Priority-setting criteria for health resource allocation decisions in LMICs largely comprised of cost-effectiveness and health benefits criteria at overall level. Other criteria like legal and regulatory framework conducive for implementation, fairness/ethics, and political considerations were infrequently reported and should be considered.

Priority setting for maternal, newborn and child health in Uganda: a qualitative study evaluating actual practice

Background

Despite continued investment, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) indicators in low and middle income countries have remained relatively poor. This could, in part, be explained by inadequate resources to adequately address these problems, inappropriate allocation of the available resources, or lack of implementation of the most effective interventions. Systematic priority setting and resource allocation could contribute to alleviating these limitations. There is a paucity of literature that follows through MNCH prioritization processes to implementation, making it difficult for policy makers to understand the impact of their decision-making on population health. The overall objective of this paper was to describe and evaluate priority setting for maternal, newborn and child health interventions in Uganda.

Methods

Fifty-four key informant interviews and a review of policies and media reports were used to describe priority setting for MNCH in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin’s conceptual framework was used to evaluate priority setting for MNCH.

Results

There were three main prioritization exercises for maternal, newborn and child health in Uganda. The processes were participatory and were guided by explicit tools, evidence, and criteria, however, the public and the districts were insufficiently involved in the priority setting process. While there were conducive contextual factors including strong political support, implementation was constrained by the presence of competing actors, with varying priorities, an unequal allocation of resources between child health and maternal health interventions, limited financial and human resources, a weak health system and limited institutional capacity.

Conclusions

Stronger institutional capacity at the Ministry of Health and equitable engagement of key stakeholders in decision-making processes, especially the public, and implementers, would improve understanding, satisfaction and compliance with the priority setting process. Availability of financial and human resources that are appropriately allocated would facilitate the implementation of well-developed policies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4170-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Measuring financial risk protection in health benefits packages: scoping review protocol to inform allocative efficiency studies

INTRODUCTION

To progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), countries will need to define a health benefits package of services free at the point of use. Financial risk protection is a core component of UHC and should therefore be considered a key dimension of health benefits packages. Allocative efficiency modelling tools can support national analytical capacity to inform an evidence-based selection of services, but none are currently able to estimate financial risk protection. A review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection can facilitate their inclusion in modelling tools so that the latter can become more relevant to national decision making in light of UHC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol proposes to conduct a scoping review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection and assess their potential to inform the selection of services in a health benefits package. The proposed review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the subsequent recommendations made by Levac et al. Several databases will be systematically searched including: (1) PubMed; (2) Scopus; (3) Web of Science and (4) Google Scholar. Grey literature will also be scanned, and the bibliography of all selected studies will be hand searched. Following the selection of studies according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, key characteristics will be collected from the studies using a data extraction tool. Key characteristics will include the type of method used, geographical region of focus and application to specific services or packages. The extracted data will then be charted, collated, reported and summarised using descriptive statistics, a thematic analysis and graphical presentations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The scoping review proposed in this protocol does not require ethical approval. The final results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and shared with key stakeholders.

A decision support system for assessing management interventions in a mental health ecosystem: The case of Bizkaia (Basque Country, Spain)

Evidence-informed strategic planning is a top priority in Mental Health (MH) due to the burden associated with this group of disorders and its societal costs. However, MH systems are highly complex, and decision support tools should follow a systems thinking approach that incorporates expert knowledge. The aim of this paper is to introduce a new Decision Support System (DSS) to improve knowledge on the health ecosystem, resource allocation and management in regional MH planning. The Efficient Decision Support-Mental Health (EDeS-MH) is a DSS that integrates an operational model to assess the Relative Technical Efficiency (RTE) of small health areas, a Monte-Carlo simulation engine (that carries out the Monte-Carlo simulation technique), a fuzzy inference engine prototype and basic statistics as well as system stability and entropy indicators. The stability indicator assesses the sensitivity of the model results due to data variations (derived from structural changes). The entropy indicator assesses the inner uncertainty of the results. RTE is multidimensional, that is, it was evaluated by using 15 variable combinations called scenarios. Each scenario, designed by experts in MH planning, has its own meaning based on different types of care. Three management interventions on the MH system in Bizkaia were analysed using key performance indicators of the service availability, placement capacity in day care, health care workforce capacity, and resource utilisation data of hospital and community care. The potential impact of these interventions has been assessed at both local and system levels. The system reacts positively to the proposals by a slight increase in its efficiency and stability (and its corresponding decrease in the entropy). However, depending on the analysed scenario, RTE, stability and entropy statistics can have a positive, neutral or negative behaviour. Using this information, decision makers can design new specific interventions/policies. EDeS-MH has been tested and face-validated in a real management situation in the Bizkaia MH system.

Priority setting for health in the context of devolution in Kenya: implications for health equity and community-based primary care

Devolution changes the locus of power within a country from central to sub-national levels. In 2013, Kenya devolved health and other services from central government to 47 new sub-national governments (known as counties). This transition seeks to strengthen democracy and accountability, increase community participation, improve efficiency and reduce inequities. With changing responsibilities and power following devolution reforms, comes the need for priority-setting at the new county level. Priority-setting arises as a consequence of the needs and demand for healthcare resources exceeding the resources available, resulting in the need for some means of choosing between competing demands. We sought to explore the impact of devolution on priority-setting for health equity and community health services. We conducted key informant and in-depth interviews with health policymakers, health providers and politicians from 10 counties (n = 269 individuals) and 14 focus group discussions with community members based in 2 counties (n = 146 individuals). Qualitative data were analysed using the framework approach. We found Kenya’s devolution reforms were driven by the need to demonstrate responsiveness to county contexts, with positive ramifications for health equity in previously neglected counties. The rapidity of the process, however, combined with limited technical capacity and guidance has meant that decision-making and prioritization have been captured and distorted for political and power interests. Less visible community health services that focus on health promotion, disease prevention and referral have been neglected within the prioritization process in favour of more tangible curative health services. The rapid transition in power carries a degree of risk of not meeting stated objectives. As Kenya moves forward, decision-makers need to address the community health gap and lay down institutional structures, processes and norms which promote health equity for all Kenyans.

Health system governance following devolution: comparing experiences of decentralisation in Kenya and Indonesia

INTRODUCTION

Devolution reforms in Indonesia and Kenya have brought extensive changes to governance structures and mechanisms for financing and delivering healthcare. Community health approaches can contribute towards attaining many of devolution's objectives, including community participation, responsiveness, accountability and improved equity. We set out to examine governance in two countries at different stages in the devolution journey: Indonesia at 15 years postdevolution and Kenya at 3 years.

METHODS

We collected qualitative data across multiple levels of the health system in one district in Indonesia and ten counties in Kenya, through 80 interviews and six focus group discussions (FGD) in Indonesia and 269 interviews and 14 FGDs in Kenya. Qualitative data were digitally recorded, transcribed and coded before thematic framework analysis. Common themes between contexts were identified inductively and deductively, and similarities and differences critically analysed during an inter-country analysis workshop.

RESULTS

Following devolution both Indonesia and Kenya experienced similar challenges ensuring good governance for health. Devolution reforms transformed power relationships, increasing responsibilities at subnational levels and introducing opportunities for citizen participation. In both contexts, the impact of these mechanisms has been undermined by insufficiently clear guidance; failure to address pre-existing negative contextual norms and practices varied decision-maker values, limited priority-setting capacity and limited genuine community accountability. As a consequence, priorities in both contexts are too often placed on curative rather than preventive health services.

CONCLUSION

We recommend consideration of increased intersectoral actions that address social determinants of health, challenge negative norms and practices and place emphasis on community-based primary health services.

Describing and evaluating healthcare priority setting practices at the county level in Kenya

BACKGROUND

Healthcare priority setting research has focused at the macro (national) and micro (patient level), while there is a dearth of literature on meso-level (subnational/regional) priority setting practices. In this study, we aimed to describe and evaluate healthcare priority setting practices at the county level in Kenya.

METHODS

We used a qualitative case study approach to examine the planning and budgeting processes in 2 counties in Kenya. We collected the data through in-depth interviews of senior managers, middle-level managers, frontline managers, and health partners (n = 23) and document reviews. We analyzed the data using a framework approach.

FINDINGS

The planning and budgeting processes in both counties were characterized by misalignment and the dominance of informal considerations in decision making. When evaluated against consequential conditions, efficiency and equity considerations were not incorporated in the planning and budgeting processes. Stakeholders were more satisfied and understood the planning process compared with the budgeting process. There was a lack of shifting of priorities and unsatisfactory implementation of decisions. Against procedural conditions, the planning process was more inclusive and transparent and stakeholders were more empowered compared with the budgeting process. There was ineffective use of data, lack of provisions for appeal and revisions, and limited mechanisms for incorporating community values in the planning and budgeting.

CONCLUSION

County governments can improve the planning and budgeting processes by aligning them, implementing a systematic priority setting process with explicit resource allocation criteria, and adhering to both consequential and procedural aspects of an ideal priority setting process.

Evaluating healthcare priority setting at the meso level: A thematic review of empirical literature

Background: Decentralization of health systems has made sub-national/regional healthcare systems the backbone of healthcare delivery. These regions are tasked with the difficult responsibility of determining healthcare priorities and resource allocation amidst scarce resources. We aimed to review empirical literature that evaluated priority setting practice at the meso level of health systems. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google scholar databases and supplemented these with manual searching for relevant studies, based on the reference list of selected papers. We only included empirical studies that described and evaluated, or those that only evaluated priority setting practice at the meso-level. A total of 16 papers were identified from LMICs and HICs. We analyzed data from the selected papers by thematic review. Results: Few studies used systematic priority setting processes, and all but one were from HICs. Both formal and informal criteria are used in priority-setting, however, informal criteria appear to be more perverse in LMICs compared to HICs. The priority setting process at the meso-level is a top-down approach with minimal involvement of the community. Accountability for reasonableness was the most common evaluative framework as it was used in 12 of the 16 studies. Efficiency, reallocation of resources and options for service delivery redesign were the most common outcome measures used to evaluate priority setting. Limitations: Our study was limited by the fact that there are very few empirical studies that have evaluated priority setting at the meso-level and there is likelihood that we did not capture all the studies. Conclusions: Improving priority setting practices at the meso level is crucial to strengthening health systems. This can be achieved through incorporating and adapting systematic priority setting processes and frameworks to the context where used, and making considerations of both process and outcome measures during priority setting and resource allocation.

Evaluating healthcare priority setting at the meso level: A thematic review of empirical literature

Background: Decentralization of health systems has made sub-national/regional healthcare systems the backbone of healthcare delivery. These regions are tasked with the difficult responsibility of determining healthcare priorities and resource allocation amidst scarce resources. We aimed to review empirical literature that evaluated priority setting practice at the meso level of health systems. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google scholar databases and supplemented these with manual searching for relevant studies, based on the reference list of selected papers. We only included empirical studies that described and evaluated, or those that only evaluated priority setting practice at the meso-level. A total of 16 papers were identified from LMICs and HICs. We analyzed data from the selected papers by thematic review. Results: Few studies used systematic priority setting processes, and all but one were from HICs. Both formal and informal criteria are used in priority-setting, however, informal criteria appear to be more perverse in LMICs compared to HICs. The priority setting process at the meso-level is a top-down approach with minimal involvement of the community. Accountability for reasonableness was the most common evaluative framework as it was used in 12 of the 16 studies. Efficiency, reallocation of resources and options for service delivery redesign were the most common outcome measures used to evaluate priority setting. Limitations: Our study was limited by the fact that there are very few empirical studies that have evaluated priority setting at the meso-level and there is likelihood that we did not capture all the studies. Conclusions: Improving priority setting practices at the meso level is crucial to strengthening health systems. This can be achieved through incorporating and adapting systematic priority setting processes and frameworks to the context where used, and making considerations of both process and outcome measures during priority setting and resource allocation.

Service-learning partnerships: Features that promote transformational and sustainable rural and remote health partnerships and services

OBJECTIVE

To describe features that promote transformational and sustainable community engaged health partnerships and services in rural and remote Australian locations.

DESIGN

A pragmatic qualitative study using focus groups and individual semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using four stages of data comparison.

SETTING

Far west New South Wales, Australia. The health partnership, initiated by primary school principals in 2008, aimed to address allied health service inequities experienced by regional children. A service-learning program was developed, aligning allied health student placements to student-led services. The program has been operational since 2009.

PARTICIPANTS

Community participants included school principals (n = 7) and senior managers (n = 2) from local facilitating agencies. Campus participants included allied health students (n = 10) and academics (n = 2), one rurally located with student supervision responsibility and one metropolitan located with a strategic partnership role.

MEASURES

All data were collected by an independent researcher. Four stages of data comparison were undertaken. A thematic analysis was conducted and six key features identified through Stage Four comparison, a comparison across the findings from discrete community and campus groups, reflecting transformational community engagement were identified.

RESULTS

These six features are: (i) identifying and responding to community need, (ii) providing services of value, (iii) community leadership and innovation, (iv) reputation and trust, (v) consistency, and (vi) knowledge sharing and program adaptation.

CONCLUSION

We propose that these features contributed to the transformational engagement of community and university participants. These features can inform health sector approaches to community engagement, enhancing rural and remote service accessibility, acceptability, and sustainability outcomes.

Setting healthcare priorities: a description and evaluation of the budgeting and planning process in county hospitals in Kenya

This paper describes and evaluates the budgeting and planning processes in public hospitals in Kenya. We used a qualitative case study approach to examine these processes in two hospitals in Kenya. We collected data by in-depth interviews of national level policy makers, hospital managers, and frontline practitioners in the case study hospitals (n = 72), a review of documents, and non-participant observations within the hospitals over a 7 month period. We applied an evaluative framework that considers both consequentialist and proceduralist conditions as important to the quality of priority-setting processes. The budgeting and planning process in the case study hospitals was characterized by lack of alignment, inadequate role clarity and the use of informal priority-setting criteria. With regard to consequentialist conditions, the hospitals incorporated economic criteria by considering the affordability of alternatives, but rarely considered the equity of allocative decisions. In the first hospital, stakeholders were aware of - and somewhat satisfied with - the budgeting and planning process, while in the second hospital they were not. Decision making in both hospitals did not result in reallocation of resources. With regard to proceduralist conditions, the budgeting and planning process in the first hospital was more inclusive and transparent, with the stakeholders more empowered compared to the second hospital. In both hospitals, decisions were not based on evidence, implementation of decisions was poor and the community was not included. There were no mechanisms for appeals or to ensure that the proceduralist conditions were met in both hospitals. Public hospitals in Kenya could improve their budgeting and planning processes by harmonizing these processes, improving role clarity, using explicit priority-setting criteria, and by incorporating both consequentialist (efficiency, equity, stakeholder satisfaction and understanding, shifted priorities, implementation of decisions), and proceduralist (stakeholder engagement and empowerment, transparency, use of evidence, revisions, enforcement, and incorporating community values) conditions.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 9: conceptualising disinvestment in the local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the ninth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The disinvestment literature has broadened considerably over the past decade; however there is a significant gap regarding systematic, integrated, organisation-wide approaches. This debate paper presents a discussion of the conceptual aspects of disinvestment from the local perspective.

DISCUSSION

Four themes are discussed: Terminology and concepts, Motivation and purpose, Relationships with other healthcare improvement paradigms, and Challenges to disinvestment. There are multiple definitions for disinvestment, multiple concepts underpin the definitions and multiple alternative terms convey these concepts; some definitions overlap and some are mutually exclusive; and there are systematic discrepancies in use between the research and practice settings. Many authors suggest that the term 'disinvestment' should be avoided due to perceived negative connotations and propose that the concept be considered alongside investment in the context of all resource allocation decisions and approached from the perspective of optimising health care. This may provide motivation for change, reduce disincentives and avoid some of the ethical dilemmas inherent in other disinvestment approaches. The impetus and rationale for disinvestment activities are likely to affect all aspects of the process from identification and prioritisation through to implementation and evaluation but have not been widely discussed. A need for mechanisms, frameworks, methods and tools for disinvestment is reported. However there are several health improvement paradigms with mature frameworks and validated methods and tools that are widely-used and well-accepted in local health services that already undertake disinvestment-type activities and could be expanded and built upon. The nature of disinvestment brings some particular challenges for policy-makers, managers, health professionals and researchers. There is little evidence of successful implementation of 'disinvestment' projects in the local setting, however initiatives to remove or replace technologies and practices have been successfully achieved through evidence-based practice, quality and safety activities, and health service improvement programs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the construct of 'disinvestment' may be problematic at the local level. A new definition and two potential approaches to disinvestment are proposed to stimulate further research and discussion.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation

Background

This is the tenth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. After more than a decade of research, there is little published evidence of active and successful disinvestment. The paucity of frameworks, methods and tools is reported to be a factor in the lack of success. However there are clear and consistent messages in the literature that can be used to inform development of a framework for operationalising disinvestment. This paper, along with the conceptual review of disinvestment in Paper 9 of this series, aims to integrate the findings of the SHARE Program with the existing disinvestment literature to address the lack of information regarding systematic organisation-wide approaches to disinvestment at the local health service level.

Discussion

A framework for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting is proposed. Definitions for essential terms and key concepts underpinning the framework have been made explicit to address the lack of consistent terminology. Given the negative connotations of the word ‘disinvestment’ and the problems inherent in considering disinvestment in isolation, the basis for the proposed framework is ‘resource allocation’ to address the spectrum of decision-making from investment to disinvestment. The focus is positive: optimising healthcare, improving health outcomes, using resources effectively.

The framework is based on three components: a program for decision-making, projects to implement decisions and evaluate outcomes, and research to understand and improve the program and project activities. The program consists of principles for decision-making and settings that provide opportunities to introduce systematic prompts and triggers to initiate disinvestment. The projects follow the steps in the disinvestment process. Potential methods and tools are presented, however the framework does not stipulate project design or conduct; allowing application of any theories, methods or tools at each step. Barriers are discussed and examples illustrating constituent elements are provided.

Conclusions

The framework can be employed at network, institutional, departmental, ward or committee level. It is proposed as an organisation-wide application, embedded within existing systems and processes, which can be responsive to needs and priorities at the level of implementation. It can be used in policy, management or clinical contexts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2506-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

International validation of quality indicators for evaluating priority setting in low income countries: process and key lessons

Background

While there have been efforts to develop frameworks to guide healthcare priority setting; there has been limited focus on evaluation frameworks. Moreover, while the few frameworks identify quality indicators for successful priority setting, they do not provide the users with strategies to verify these indicators. Kapiriri and Martin (Health Care Anal 18:129-147, 2010) developed a framework for evaluating priority setting in low and middle income countries. This framework provides BOTH parameters for successful priority setting and proposes means of their verification. Before its use in real life contexts, this paper presents results from a validation process of the framework.

Methods

The framework validation involved 53 policy makers and priority setting researchers at the global, national and sub-national levels (in Uganda). They were requested to indicate the relative importance of the proposed parameters as well as the feasibility of obtaining the related information. We also pilot tested the proposed means of verification.

Results

Almost all the respondents evaluated all the parameters, including the contextual factors, as ‘very important’. However, some respondents at the global level thought ‘presence of incentives to comply’, ‘reduced disagreements’, ‘increased public understanding,’ ‘improved institutional accountability’ and ‘meeting the ministry of health objectives’, which could be a reflection of their levels of decision making. All the proposed means of verification were assessed as feasible with the exception of meeting observations which would require an insider. These findings results were consistent with those obtained from the pilot testing.

Conclusions

These findings are relevant to policy makers and researchers involved in priority setting in low and middle income countries. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few initiatives that has involved potential users of a framework (at the global and in a Low Income Country) in its validation. The favorable validation of all the parameters at the national and sub-national levels implies that the framework has potential usefulness at those levels, as is. The parameters that were disputed at the global level necessitate further discussion when using the framework at that level. The next step is to use the validated framework in evaluating actual priority setting at the different levels.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2360-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6: investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the sixth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE program was established to investigate a systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment within a large Australian health service. This paper describes the methods employed in undertaking pilot disinvestment projects. It draws a number of lessons regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods; particularly regarding the crucial first step of identifying targets for disinvestment.

METHODS

Literature reviews, survey, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. A theoretical framework was adapted for evaluation and explication of disinvestment projects, including a taxonomy for the determinants of effectiveness, process of change and outcome measures. Implementation, evaluation and costing plans were developed.

RESULTS

Four literature reviews were completed, surveys were received from 15 external experts, 65 interviews were conducted, 18 senior decision-makers attended a data gathering workshop, 22 experts and local informants were consulted, and four decision-making workshops were undertaken. Mechanisms to identify disinvestment targets and criteria for prioritisation and decision-making were investigated. A catalogue containing 184 evidence-based opportunities for disinvestment and an algorithm to identify disinvestment projects were developed. An Expression of Interest process identified two potential disinvestment projects. Seventeen additional projects were proposed through a non-systematic nomination process. Four of the 19 proposals were selected as pilot projects but only one reached the implementation stage. Factors with potential influence on the outcomes of disinvestment projects are discussed and barriers and enablers in the pilot projects are summarised.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an in-depth insight into the experience of disinvestment in one local healthcare service. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the process of disinvestment from identification, through prioritisation and decision-making, to implementation and evaluation, and finally explication of the processes and outcomes.

The influence of power and actor relations on priority setting and resource allocation practices at the hospital level in Kenya: a case study

Background

Priority setting and resource allocation in healthcare organizations often involves the balancing of competing interests and values in the context of hierarchical and politically complex settings with multiple interacting actor relationships. Despite this, few studies have examined the influence of actor and power dynamics on priority setting practices in healthcare organizations. This paper examines the influence of power relations among different actors on the implementation of priority setting and resource allocation processes in public hospitals in Kenya.

Methods

We used a qualitative case study approach to examine priority setting and resource allocation practices in two public hospitals in coastal Kenya. We collected data by a combination of in-depth interviews of national level policy makers, hospital managers, and frontline practitioners in the case study hospitals (n = 72), review of documents such as hospital plans and budgets, minutes of meetings and accounting records, and non-participant observations in case study hospitals over a period of 7 months. We applied a combination of two frameworks, Norman Long’s actor interface analysis and VeneKlasen and Miller’s expressions of power framework to examine and interpret our findings

Results

The interactions of actors in the case study hospitals resulted in socially constructed interfaces between: 1) senior managers and middle level managers 2) non-clinical managers and clinicians, and 3) hospital managers and the community. Power imbalances resulted in the exclusion of middle level managers (in one of the hospitals) and clinicians and the community (in both hospitals) from decision making processes. This resulted in, amongst others, perceptions of unfairness, and reduced motivation in hospital staff. It also puts to question the legitimacy of priority setting processes in these hospitals.

Conclusions

Designing hospital decision making structures to strengthen participation and inclusion of relevant stakeholders could improve priority setting practices. This should however, be accompanied by measures to empower stakeholders to contribute to decision making. Strengthening soft leadership skills of hospital managers could also contribute to managing the power dynamics among actors in hospital priority setting processes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1796-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.