Search

The need to bolster primary health care (PHC) to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets for health is well recognized. In Eastern and Southern Africa, where governments have progressively decentralized health decision-making, health management is critical to PHC performance. While investments in health management capacity are important, so is improving the environment in which managers operate. Governance arrangements, management systems and power dynamics of actors can have a significant influence on health managers’ ability to improve PHC access and quality. We conducted a problem-driven political economy analysis (PEA) in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda to explore local decision-making environments and how they affect management and governance practices for health. This PEA used document review and key informant interviews (N = 112) with government actors, development partners and civil societies in three districts or counties in each country (N = 9). We found that while decentralization should improve PHC by supporting better decisions in line with local priorities from community input, it has been accompanied by thick bureaucracy, path-dependent and underfunded budgets that result in trade-offs and unfulfilled plans, management support systems that are less aligned to local priorities, weak accountability between local government and development partners, uneven community engagement and insufficient public administration capacity to negotiate these challenges. Emergent findings suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) not only resulted in greater pressures on health teams and budgets but also improved relations with central government related to better communication and flexible funding, offering some lessons. Without addressing the disconnection between the vision for decentralization and the reality of health managers mired in unhelpful processes and politics, delivering on PHC and universal health coverage goals and the SDG agenda will remain out of reach.

The application of mixed methods in Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) has expanded remarkably. Nevertheless, a recent review has highlighted how many mixed methods studies do not conceptualize the quantitative and the qualitative component as part of a single research effort, failing to make use of integrated approaches to data collection and analysis. More specifically, current mixed methods studies rarely rely on emergent designs as a specific feature of this methodological approach. In our work, we postulate that explicitly acknowledging the emergent nature of mixed methods research by building on a continuous exchange between quantitative and qualitative strains of data collection and analysis leads to a richer and more informative application in the field of HPSR. We illustrate our point by reflecting on our own experience conducting the mixed methods impact evaluation of a complex health system intervention in Malawi, the Results Based Financing for Maternal and Newborn Health Initiative. We describe how in the light of a contradiction between the initial set of quantitative and qualitative findings, we modified our design multiple times to include additional sources of quantitative and qualitative data and analytical approaches. To find an answer to the initial riddle, we made use of household survey data, routine health facility data, and multiple rounds of interviews with both healthcare workers and service users. We highlight what contextual factors made it possible for us to maintain the high level of methodological flexibility that ultimately allowed us to solve the riddle. This process of constant reiteration between quantitative and qualitative data allowed us to provide policymakers with a more credible and comprehensive picture of what dynamics the intervention had triggered and with what effects, in a way that we would have never been able to do had we kept faithful to our original mixed methods design.