Search

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]

Abstract Background Studies on costs incurred by patients for tuberculosis (TB) care are limited as these costs are reported as averages, and the economic impact of the costs is estimated based on average patient/household incomes. Average expenditures do not represent the poor because they spend less on treatment compared to other economic groups. Thus, the extent to which TB expenditures risk sending households into, or further into, poverty and its determinants, is unknown. We assessed the incidence and determinants of household catastrophic payments for TB care in rural Nigeria. Methods Data used were obtained from a survey of 452 pulmonary TB patients sampled from three rural health facilities in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Using household direct costs and income data, we analyzed the incidence of household catastrophic payments using, as thresholds, the traditional >10% of household income and the ≥40% of non-food income, as recommended by the World Health Organization. We used logistic regression analysis to identify the determinants of catastrophic payments. Results Average direct household costs for TB were US$157 or 14% of average annual incomes. The incidence catastrophic payment was 44%; with 69% and 15% of the poorest and richest household income-quartiles experiencing catastrophic activity, respectively. Independent determinants of catastrophic payments were: age >40 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0, 7.8), male gender (aOR 3.0; CI 1.8, 5.2), urban residence (aOR 3.8; CI 1.9, 7.7), formal education (aOR 4.7; CI 2.5, 8.9), care at a private facility (aOR 2.9; 1.5, 5.9), poor household (aOR 6.7; CI 3.7, 12), household where the patient is the primary earner (aOR 3.8; CI 2.2, 6.6]), and HIV co-infection (aOR 3.1; CI 1.7, 5.6). Conclusions Current cost-lowering strategies are not enough to prevent households from incurring catastrophic out-of-pocket payments for TB care. Financial and social protection interventions are needed for identified at-risk groups, and community-level interventions may reduce inefficiencies in the care-seeking pathway. These observations should inform post-2015 TB strategies and influence policy-making on health services that are meant to be free of charge.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Package of essential noncommunicable disease interventions (known as WHO PEN) was designed for the prevention, early detection, treatment and care of diabetes, cancer, chronic respiratory [...]

Author(s): Seye Abimbola 1, Sumegha Asthana 2, Cristian Montenegro Cortes 3, Renzo R. Guinto 4, Desmond Tanko Jumbam 5, Lance Louskieter 6, Kenneth Munge Kabubei 7, Shehnaz Munshi 8, Kui [...]

In many low- and middle-income countries, the challenges of scaling up successful localized projects to achieve national coverage are well recognized. (1) However, because of the widely acknowledged success of [...]