Search

Background: Ethiopia's health system is overwhelmed by the growing burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). In this study, we assessed the availability of and readiness for NCD services and the interaction of NCD services with other essential and non-NCD services. Methods: The analysis focused on four main NCD services: diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer screening. We used data from the 2018 Ethiopian Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA) survey. As defined by the World Health Organization, readiness, both general and service-specific, was measured based on the mean percentage availability of the tracer indicators, such as trained staff and guidelines, equipment, diagnostic capacity, and essential medicines and commodities needed for delivering essential health services and NCD-specific services, respectively. The survey comprised 632 nationally representative healthcare facilities, and we applied mixed-effects linear and ordered logit models to identify factors affecting NCD service availability and readiness. Results: Only 8% of facilities provided all four NCD services. Availability varied for specific services, with cervical cancer screening being the least available service in the country: less than 10% of facilities, primarily higher-level hospitals, provided cervical cancer screening. General service readiness was a strong predictor of NCD service availability. Differences in NCD service availability and readiness between regions and facility types were significant. Increased readiness for specific NCD services was significantly associated with increased readiness for communicable disease services and interacted with the readiness for other NCD services. Conclusion: NCD service availability has considerable regional variation and is positively associated with general and communicable disease services readiness. Readiness for specific NCD services interacted with one another. The findings suggest an integrated approach to service delivery, focussing holistically on all disease services, is needed. There also needs to be increased attention to reducing resource allocation variation between facility types and locations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusion Processes of self‐reflection and the learning they allow are crucial before, during, and after acute emergencies, including infectious disease outbreaks. Tools—such as Action Reviews—offer World Health Organization (WHO) member states a platform to enhance learning. We sought to better understand the value of these tools and how they may be further refined and better used.We searched the publicly available WHO Strategic Partnership for Health Security website for paired reports of Action Reviews, that is, reports with a comparable follow‐up report. We complemented the paired action reviews, with a literature search, including the gray literature. The paired action reviews were analyzed using the “Learning Health Systems” framework.We identified three paired action reviews: Lassa Fever After Action Reviews (AARs) in Nigeria (2017 and 2018), COVID‐19 Intra‐Action Reviews (IARs) in Botswana (2020 and 2021), and COVID‐19 IARs in South Sudan (2020 and 2021). Action Reviews allowed for surfacing relevant knowledge and, by engaging the right (in different contexts) actors, asking “are we doing things right?” (single loop learning) was evident in all the reports. Single loop learning is often embedded within examples of double loop learning (“are we doing the right things?”), providing a more transformative basis for policy change. Triple loop learning (“are we learning right”?) was evident in AARs, and less in IARs. The range of participants involved, the level of concentrated focus on specific issues, the duration available for follow through, and the pressures on the health system to respond influenced the type (i.e., loop) and the effectiveness of learning.Action Reviews, by design, surface knowledge. With favorable contextual conditions, this knowledge can then be applied and lead to corrective and innovative actions to improve health system performance, and in exceptional cases, continuous learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unfair knowledge practices easily beset our efforts to achieve health equity within and between countries. Enacted by people from a distance and from a position of power ('the centre') on behalf of and alongside people with less power ('the periphery'), these unfair practices have generated a complex literature of complaints across various axes of inequity. We identified a sample of this literature from 12 journals and systematized it using the realist approach to explanation. We framed the outcome to be explained as 'manifestations of unfair knowledge practices'; their generative mechanisms as 'the reasoning of individuals or rationale of institutions'; and context that enable them as 'conditions that give knowledge practices their structure'. We identified four categories of unfair knowledge practices, each triggered by three mechanisms: (1) credibility deficit related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's cultural knowledge, technical knowledge and "articulation" of knowledge do not matter'), (2) credibility deficit related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, knowledge platforms and scholarly standards must drive collective knowledge-making'), (3) interpretive marginalization related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's sensemaking of partnerships, problems and social reality do not matter') and (4) interpretive marginalization related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, social sensitivities and status preservation must drive collective sensemaking'). Together, six mutually overlapping, reinforcing and dependent categories of context influence all 12 mechanisms: 'mislabelling' (the periphery as inferior), 'miseducation' (on structural origins of disadvantage), 'under-representation' (of the periphery on knowledge platforms), 'compounded spoils' (enjoyed by the centre), 'under-governance' (in making, changing, monitoring, enforcing and applying rules for fair engagement) and 'colonial mentality' (of/at the periphery). These context–mechanism–outcome linkages can inform efforts to redress unfair knowledge practices, investigations of unfair knowledge practices across disciplines and axes of inequity and ethics guidelines for health system research and practice when working at a social or physical distance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is growing scholarly interest in what leads to global or national prioritization of specific health issues. By retrospectively analysing agenda setting for India's national burn programme, this study aimed to better understand how the agenda-setting process influenced its design, implementation and performance. We conducted document reviews and key informant interviews with stakeholders and used a combination of analytical frameworks on policy prioritization and issue framing for analysis. The READ (readying material, extracting data, analysing data and distilling findings) approach was used for document reviews, and qualitative thematic analysis was used for coding and analysis of documents and interviews. The findings suggest three critical features of burns care policy prioritization in India: challenges of issue characteristics, divergent portrayal of ideas and its framing as a social and/or health issue and over-centralization of agenda setting. First, lack of credible indicators on the magnitude of the problem and evidence on interventions limited issue framing, advocacy and agenda setting. Second, the policy response to burns has two dimensions in India: response to gender-based intentional injuries and the healthcare response. While intentional burns have received policy attention, the healthcare response was limited until the national programme was initiated in 2010 and scaled up in 2014. Third, over-centralization of agenda setting (dominated by a few homogenous actors, located in the national capital, with attention focused on the national ministry of health) contributed to limitations in programme design and implementation. We note following elements to consider when analysing issues of significant burden but limited priority: the need to analyse how actors influence issue framing, the particularities of issues, the inadequacy of any one dominant frame and the limited intersection of frames. Based on this analysis in India, we recommend a decentralized approach to agenda setting and for the design and implementation of national programmes from the outset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]