Search

Background: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) availed opportunities for scaling up service coverage but called for stringent monitoring and evaluation (M&E) focusing mainly on MDG related programs. The Sustainable Development Goals 3 (SDGs) and the universal health coverage (UHC) agenda present a broader scope and require more sophisticated M&E systems. We assessed the readiness of low- and middle-income countries to monitor SDG 3., Methods: Employing mixed methods, we reviewed health sector M&E plans of 6 countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) Africa Region to assess the challenges to M&E, the indicator selection pattern and the extent of multisectoral collaboration. Qualitative data were analysed using content thematic analysis while quantitative data were analysed using Excel., Results: Challenges to monitoring SDG 3 include weak institutional capacity; fragmentation of M&E functions; inadequate domestic financing; inadequate data availability, dissemination and utilization of M?&E products. The total number of indictors in the reviewed plans varied from 38 for Zimbabwe to 235 for Zanzibar. Sixty-nine percent of indicators for the Gambia and 89% for Zanzibar were not classified in any domain in the M&E results chain. Countries lay greater M&E emphasis on service delivery, health systems, maternal and child health as well as communicable diseases with a seeming neglect of the non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Inclusion of SDG 3 indicators only ranged from 48% for Zanzibar to 67% for Kenya. Although monitoring SDG 3 calls for multisectoral collaboration, consideration of the role of other sectors in the M&E plans was either absent or limited to the statistical departments., Conclusion: There are common challenges confronting M&E at county-level. Countries have omitted key indicators for monitoring components of the SDG 3 targets especially those on NCDs and injuries. The role of other sectors in monitoring SDG 3 targets is not adequately reflected. These could be bottlenecks to tracking progress towards SDG 3 if not addressed. Beyond providing compendium of indicators to guide countries, we advocate for a more binding minimum set of indicators for all countries to which they may add depending on their context. Ministries of Health (MoHs) should prioritise M&E as an important pillar for health service planning and implementation and not as an add-on activity.

Background: Although there is a general agreement on the benefits of evidence informed health policy development given resource constraints especially in Low-Income Countries (LICs), the definition of what evidence is, and what evidence is suitable to guide decision-making is still unclear. Our study is contributing to filling this knowledge gap. We aimed to explore health policy actors' views regarding what evidence they deemed appropriate to guide health policy development., Methods: Using exploratory qualitative methods, we conducted interviews with 51 key informants using an in-depth interview guide. We interviewed a diverse group of stakeholders in health policy development and knowledge translation in the Uganda health sector. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis techniques., Results: Different stakeholders lay emphasis on different kinds of evidence. While donors preferred international evidence and Ministry of Health (MoH) officials looked to local evidence, district health managers preferred local evidence, evidence from routine monitoring and evaluation, and reports from service providers. Service providers on the other hand preferred local evidence and routine monitoring and evaluation reports whilst researchers preferred systematic reviews and clinical trials. Stakeholders preferred evidence covering several aspects impacting on decision-making highlighting the fact that although policy actors look for factual information, they also require evidence on context and implementation feasibility of a policy decision., Conclusion: What LICs like Uganda categorize as evidence suitable for informing policy encompasses several types with no consensus on what is deemed as most appropriate. Evidence must be of high quality, applicable, acceptable to the users, and informing different aspects of decision-making., (© 2015 by Kerman University of Medical Sciences.)