Search

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., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

Seye Abimbola and co-authors argue for a transformation in global health research and practice in the post-COVID-19 world., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MP serves on the editorial board of PLOS Medicine. None of the other authors have competing interests to disclose.

Showing the causal link between community engagement and improved health outcomes is a 'holy grail' of health policy. This article argues that this 'holy grail' has remained elusive because community engagement in primary health care is under-theorized, having been based on positive a priori assumptions, e.g. that people necessarily want to be engaged in governing their health system. By adopting a theory-driven approach and an agnostic premise, we show that understanding why, how and when community engagement may emerge or function spontaneously is important for informing efforts to support community engagement in primary health care primary health care governance. We draw on empirical research on community engagement in Nigeria and on the literature to identify the 'why' (coalition of service users can emerge in response to under-governance); the 'how' (five modes: through meetings; reaching out within their community; lobbying governments; augmenting government support; and taking control of service delivery) and the 'when' (as geographical, socio-economic and institutional context align, such that the benefits of action outweigh costs). Understanding the broad patterns of mechanisms and of contextual factors that apply across communities is, after all, our 'holy grail'-and this understanding should inform efforts to tailor support for community engagement in governance in different settings., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Policy making, translation and implementation in politically and administratively decentralized systems can be challenging. Beyond the mere sub-national acceptance of national initiatives, adherence to policy implementation processes is often poor, particularly in low and middle-income countries. In this study, we explore the implementation fidelity of integrated PHC governance policy in Nigeria's decentralized governance system and its implications on closing implementation gaps with respect to other top-down health policies and initiatives., Methods: Having engaged policy makers, we identified 9 core components of the policy (Governance, Legislation, Minimum Service Package, Repositioning, Systems Development, Operational Guidelines, Human Resources, Funding Structure, and Office Establishment). We evaluated the level and pattern of implementation at state level as compared to the national guidelines using a scorecard approach., Results: Contrary to national government's assessment of level of compliance, we found that sub-national governments exercised significant discretion with respect to the implementation of core components of the policy. Whereas 35 and 32% of states fully met national criteria for the structural domains of "Office Establishment" and Legislation" respectively, no state was fully compliant to "Human Resource Management" and "Funding" requirements, which are more indicative of functionality. The pattern of implementation suggests that, rather than implementing to improve outcomes, state governments may be more interested in executing low hanging fruits in order to access national incentives., Conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of evaluating implementation fidelity in providing evidence of implementation gaps towards improving policy execution, particularly in decentralized health systems. This approach will help national policy makers identify more effective ways of supporting lower tiers of governance towards improvement of health systems and outcomes.

Since the mid-1980s, the national health policy in Nigeria has sought to inspire community engagement in primary health care by bringing communities into partnership with service providers through community health committees. Using a realist approach to understand how and under what circumstances the committees function, we explored 581 meeting minutes from 129 committees across four states in Nigeria (Lagos, Benue, Nasarawa and Kaduna). We found that community health committees provide opportunities for improving the demand and supply of health care in their community. Committees demonstrate five modes of functioning: through meetings (as 'village square'), reaching out within their community (as 'community connectors'), lobbying governments for support (as 'government botherers'), inducing and augmenting government support (as 'back-up government') and taking control of health care in their community (as 'general overseers'). In performing these functions, community health committees operate within and through the existing social, cultural and religious structures of their community, thereby providing an opportunity for the health facility with which they are linked to be responsive to the needs and values of the community. But due to power asymmetries, committees have limited capacity to influence health facilities for improved performance, and governments for improved health service provision. This is perhaps because national guidelines are not clear on their accountability functions; they are not aware of the minimum standards of services to expect; and they have a limited sense of legitimacy in their relations with sub-national governments because they are established as the consequence of a national policy. Committees therefore tend to promote collective action for self-support more than collective action for demanding accountability. To function optimally, community health committees require national government or non-government organization mentoring and support; they need to be enshrined in law to bolster their sense of legitimacy; and they also require financial support to subsidise their operation costs especially in geographically large communities., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

Background: Health systems are complex and health policies are political. While grand policies are set by politicians, the detailed implementation strategies which influence the shape and impact of these policies are delegated to technical personnel. This is an underappreciated opportunity for optimising health systems. We propose that selective 'breeding' through successive evaluations of and selection among implementation strategies is a metaphor that health system thinkers can use to improve health care., Discussion: Similar to Darwinian evolution, the acceptance and accumulation of successful choices and the detection and discarding of unsuccessful ones would improve health systems in small and uncontroversial ways, over time. The effects of better implementation choices would be synergistic and cumulative, accumulating large impact (and lessons) from small changes. Just as with evolution of species, this means that even slight improvements over usual outcomes makes these numerous small choices as important a focus for system improvement as the overarching policy itself. Several alternative implementation approaches can be compared under real-world conditions in prospective head-to-head experimental and non-experimental explorations to understand whether and to what extent a strategy works and what works for whom, how, and under what circumstances in different locations. As in breeding or evolution, the best variants would spread to become the new, proven superior, implementation strategies for that policy in those settings., Conclusions: Evolution does not produce a new species whole, in a single transaction. Instead it gathers new parts and powers over time as different combinations are tested through competition with one another, to survive and spread or become extinct. Without necessarily changing or challenging grand policies, extending this idea to health systems innovation can facilitate thinking around how local, small - but cumulative - improvements in implementation potentially contribute to a pattern of successive adaptation spreading within its viable niche and ultimately providing locally-derived, long-term improvements in health systems.

There have been recent concerns about the failure of several global health interventions. Interventions are considered to have failed when they are unable to achieve the intended results. Failure may be linked to how the intervention was designed (design failure) or how it was implemented (implementation failure). Recently, substantial efforts have been employed to improve the outcomes of health interventions. These efforts have led to the development of several theories, models, and frameworks in implementation science to improve the quality of implementation, bridging the divide between evidence and practice. But significant gaps still exist. Whereas much work has been done to develop frameworks and approaches to improve implementation fidelity, not as much effort has been done to guide the adherence of interventions to program theory during the design of the programs. Further, there have been concerns about the applicability of these frameworks in the real-world. This article uses examples to illustrate these gaps and further proposes a pragmatic framework to address identified gaps, thus aiding evidence-informed program design and implementation. The proposed Theory-Design-Implementation (TyDI) framework will support policymakers, program planners and implementers to address potential design and implementation failure, thus improving the fidelity of interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Efforts to improve the adoption of evidence‐based interventions for optimal patient outcomes in low‐/middle‐income countries (LMICs) are persistently hampered by a plethora of barriers. Yet, little is known about strategies to address such barriers to improve quality stroke care. This study seeks to explore health professionals' views on strategies to improve quality stroke care for people who had a stroke in a LMIC. Methods: A qualitative interview study design was adopted. A semi‐structured interview guide was used to conduct in‐depth interviews among forty stroke care providers in major referral centres in Ghana. Participants were from nursing, medical, specialist and allied health professional groups. A purposive sample was recruited to share their views on practical strategies to improve quality stroke care in clinical settings. A thematic analysis approach was utilized to inductively analyse the data. Results: A number of overarching themes of strategies to improve quality stroke care were identified: computerization and digitization of medical practice, allocation of adequate resources, increase the human resource capacity to deliver stroke care, development of clinical guideline/treatment protocols, institutionalization of multidisciplinary care and professional development opportunities. These strategies were however differentially prioritized among different categories of stroke care providers. Conclusion: Closing the gap between existing knowledge on how to improve quality of stroke care in LMICs has the potential to be successful if unique and context‐specific measures from the views of stroke care providers are considered in developing quality improvement strategies and health systems and policy reforms. However, for optimal outcomes, further research into the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed strategies by stroke care providers is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is important that researchers who study health system governance have a set of collective understandings of the meanings of governance, which can then inform the methods used in research. We present an institutional framing and definition of health system governance; that is, governance refers to making, changing, monitoring and enforcing the rules that govern the demand and supply of health services. This pervasive, relational view of governance is to be preferred to approaches that focus primarily on structures of governments and health care organizations, because health system governance involves communities and service users, and because governments in many low- and middle-income countries tend to under-govern. Therefore, the study of health system governance requires institutional analysis; an approach that focuses not only on structures, but also on the rules (both formal and informal) governing demand and supply relations. Using this 'structure-relations' lens, and based on our field experience, we discuss how this focus could be applied to the three approaches to framing and studying health system governance that we identified in the literature. In order of decreasing focus on structures ('hardware') and increasing focus on relations ('software'), they are: (1) the government-centred approach, which focuses on the role of governments, above or to the exclusion of non-government health system actors; (2) the building-block approach, which focuses on the internal workings of health care organizations, and treats governance as one of the several building blocks of organizations; and (3) the institutional approach, which focuses on how the rules governing social and economic interactions are made, changed, monitored and enforced. Notably, either or both qualitative and quantitative methods may be used by researchers in efforts to incorporate the analysis of how rules determine relations among health system actors into these three approaches to health system governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Policy making, translation and implementation in politically and administratively decentralized systems can be challenging. Beyond the mere sub-national acceptance of national initiatives, adherence to policy implementation processes is often poor, particularly in low and middle-income countries. In this study, we explore the implementation fidelity of integrated PHC governance policy in Nigeria's decentralized governance system and its implications on closing implementation gaps with respect to other top-down health policies and initiatives.Methods: Having engaged policy makers, we identified 9 core components of the policy (Governance, Legislation, Minimum Service Package, Repositioning, Systems Development, Operational Guidelines, Human Resources, Funding Structure, and Office Establishment). We evaluated the level and pattern of implementation at state level as compared to the national guidelines using a scorecard approach.Results: Contrary to national government's assessment of level of compliance, we found that sub-national governments exercised significant discretion with respect to the implementation of core components of the policy. Whereas 35 and 32% of states fully met national criteria for the structural domains of "Office Establishment" and Legislation" respectively, no state was fully compliant to "Human Resource Management" and "Funding" requirements, which are more indicative of functionality. The pattern of implementation suggests that, rather than implementing to improve outcomes, state governments may be more interested in executing low hanging fruits in order to access national incentives.Conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of evaluating implementation fidelity in providing evidence of implementation gaps towards improving policy execution, particularly in decentralized health systems. This approach will help national policy makers identify more effective ways of supporting lower tiers of governance towards improvement of health systems and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights the experience of preventing HIV infection that can be applied in noncommunicable disease prevention and control. Topics mentioned include some intervention scale-up suggested by World Health Organization (WHO) to prevent noncommunicable diseases in low-resource settings, the hindrances to intervention scale up, and the importance of using global data monitoring, measurement and evaluation platforms on scale-up.

Stroke is a major public health issue in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the emergence of new effective interventions for acute stroke care, uptake remains slow and largely inaccessible to patients in LMICs, where health systems response has been inadequate. In this paper, we propose a policy framework to optimise access to acute stroke care in LMICs. We draw on evidence from relevant primary studies, such as availability of evidence-based acute stroke care interventions, barriers to uptake of interventions for stroke care and insights on stroke mortality and morbidity burden in LMICs. Insights from review of secondary studies, principally systematic reviews on evidence-based acute stroke care; and the accounts and experiences of some regional experts on stroke and other NCDs have been taken into consideration. In LMICs, there is limited availability and access to emergency medical transport services, brain imaging services and best practice interventions for acute stroke care. Availability of specialist acute stroke workforce and low awareness of early stroke signs and symptoms are also major challenges impeding the delivery of quality stroke care services. As a result, stroke care in LMICs is patchy, fragmented and often results in poor patient outcomes. Reconfiguration of LMIC health systems is thus required to optimise access to quality acute stroke care. We therefore propose a ten-point framework to be adapted to country-specific health system capacity, needs and resources: Emergency medical transport and treatment services, scaling-up interventions and services for acute stroke care, clinical guidelines for acute stroke treatment and management, access to brain imaging services, human resource capacity development strategies, centralisation of stroke services, tele-stroke care, public awareness campaigns on early stroke symptoms, establish stroke registers and financing of stroke care in LMICs. While we recognise the challenges of implementing the recommendations in low resource settings, this list can provide a platform as well serve as the starting point for advocacy and prioritisation of interventions depending on context. • There is a disproportionate burden of stroke in most parts of LMICs • Uptake of new effective interventions for acute stroke care remains limited. • Reconfiguration of health systems should be prioritised to optimise access to quality acute stroke care • Contextually appropriate approaches are critical in reconfiguring health systems to improve care [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]