Dataset Information

Assessment of human resources for health using cross-national comparison of facility surveys in six countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health facility assessments are being increasingly used to measure and monitor indicators of health workforce performance, but the global evidence base remains weak. Partly this is due to the wide variability in assessment methods and tools, hampering comparability across and within countries and over time. The World Health Organization coordinated a series of facility-based surveys using a common approach in six countries: Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Jamaica, Mozambique, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. The objectives were twofold: to inform the development and monitoring of human resources for health (HRH) policy within the countries; and to test and validate the use of standardized facility-based human resources assessment tools across different contexts.

Methods

The survey methodology drew on harmonized questionnaires and guidelines for data collection and processing. In accordance with the survey's dual objectives, this paper presents both descriptive statistics on a number of policy-relevant indicators for monitoring and evaluation of HRH as well as a qualitative assessment of the usefulness of the data collection tool for comparative analyses.

Results

The findings revealed a large diversity in both the organization of health services delivery and, in particular, the distribution and activities of facility-based health workers across the sampled countries. At the same time, some commonalities were observed, including the importance of nursing and midwifery personnel in the skill mix and the greater tendency of physicians to engage in dual practice. While the use of standardized questionnaires offered the advantage of enhancing cross-national comparability of the results, some limitations were noted, especially in relation to the categories used for occupations and qualifications that did not necessarily conform to the country situation.

Conclusion

With increasing experience in health facility assessments for HRH monitoring comes greater need to establish and promote best practices regarding methods and tools for their implementation, as well as dissemination and use of the results for evidence-informed decision-making. The overall findings of multi-country facility-based survey should help countries and partners develop greater capacity to identify and measure indicators of HRH performance via this approach, and eventually contribute to better understanding of health workforce dynamics at the national and international levels.

SUBMITTER: Gupta N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2660277 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of human resources for health using cross-national comparison of facility surveys in six countries.

Gupta Neeru N Dal Poz Mario R MR

Human resources for health 20090312

<h4>Background</h4>Health facility assessments are being increasingly used to measure and monitor indicators of health workforce performance, but the global evidence base remains weak. Partly this is due to the wide variability in assessment methods and tools, hampering comparability across and within countries and over time. The World Health Organization coordinated a series of facility-based surveys using a common approach in six countries: Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Jamaica, Mozambique, Sri Lanka a ...[more]

PMID: 19284604

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare oral health in the US and England and to assess levels of educational and income related oral health inequalities between both countries.DesignCross sectional analysis of US and English national surveys.SettingNon-institutionalised adults living in their own homes.ParticipantsOral health measures and socioeconomic indicators were assessed in nationally representative samples: the Adult Dental Health Survey 2009 for England, and the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-08. Adults aged ≥25 years were included in analyses with samples of 8719 (England) and 9786 (US) for analyses by education, and 7184 (England) and 9094 (US) for analyses by income.Main outcome measuresNumber of missing teeth, self rated oral health, and oral impacts on daily life were outcomes. Educational attainment and household income were used as socioeconomic indicators. Age standardised estimates of oral health were compared between countries and across educational and income groups. Regression models were fitted, and relative and absolute inequalities were measured using the relative index of inequality (RII) and the slope index of inequality (SII).ResultsThe mean number of missing teeth was significantly higher in the US (7.31 (standard error 0.15)) than in England (6.97 (0.09)), while oral impacts were higher in England. There was evidence of significant social gradients in oral health in both countries, although differences in oral health by socioeconomic position varied according to the oral health measure used. Consistently higher RII and SII values were found in the US than in England, particularly for self rated oral health. RII estimates for self rated oral health by education were 3.67 (95% confidence interval 3.23 to 4.17) in the US and 1.83 (1.59 to 2.11) in England. In turn, SII values were 42.55 (38.14 to 46.96) in the US and 18.43 (14.01 to 22.85) in England.ConclusionsThe oral health of US citizens is not better than the English, and there are consistently wider educational and income oral health inequalities in the US compared with England.

Project description:BackgroundData on emergency and critical care (ECC) capacity in low-income countries (LICs) are needed to improve outcomes and make progress towards realizing the goal of Universal Health Coverage.MethodsWe developed a novel research instrument to assess public sector ECC capacity and service readiness in LICs. From January 20th to February 18th, 2020 we administered the instrument at all four central hospitals and a simple random sample of nine of 24 district hospitals in Malawi, a landlocked and predominantly rural LIC of 19·1 million people in Southern Africa. The instrument contained questions on the availability of key resources across three domains and was administered to hospital administrators and clinicians from outpatient departments, emergency departments, and inpatient units. Results were used to generate an ECC Readiness Score, with a possible range of 0 to 1, for each facility.FindingsA total of 114 staff members across 13 hospitals completed interviews for this study. Three (33%) district hospitals and all four central hospitals had ECC Readiness Scores above 0·5 (p-value 0·070). Absent equipment was identified as the most common barrier to ECC Readiness. Central hospitals had higher median ECC Readiness Scores with less variability 0·82 (interquartile range: 0·80-0·89) than district hospitals (0·33, 0·23 to 0·50, p-value 0·021).InterpretationThis is the first study to employ a systematic approach to assessing ECC capacity and service readiness at both district and central hospitals in Malawi and provides a framework for measuring ECC capacity in other LICs. Prior ECC assessments potentially overestimated equipment availability and our methodology may provide a more accurate approach. There is an urgent need for investments in ECC services, particularly at district hospitals which are more accessible to Malawi's predominantly rural population. These findings highlight the need for long-term investments in health systems strengthening and underscore the importance of understanding capacity in LIC settings to inform these efforts.FundingDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Project description:IntroductionThe availability of lower-cost cigarettes in neighboring countries provides price-sensitive smokers with incentives to purchase cheaper out-of-country cigarettes. This study estimates the prevalence of and factors associated with cross-border purchasing of cheaper cigarettes among smokers from Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Spain. The prevalence of cross-border purchasing was estimated by residential location, defined as living in regions bordering a lower-price country (where prices were at least €1/pack lower), regions bordering a similar- or higher-price country, and internal non-border regions.MethodsData were from a survey of nationally representative samples of adult smokers (n=6011) from Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Spain. The primary outcome was purchasing cheaper out-of-country cigarettes in the previous six months. Residential location was defined using The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS2 in Germany and NUTS3 in the other countries). Multivariable logistic regression tested differences in purchasing cheaper out-of-country cigarettes by country and residential location.ResultsResidential location was associated with purchasing cheaper out-of-country cigarettes in Germany and Poland (p<0.05): 31% of German and 11% of Polish smokers living in regions bordering lower-price countries reported purchasing cheaper out-of-country cigarettes in the previous six months. Smokers living in regions bordering lower-price countries had 4.21 times greater odds of purchasing cheaper out-of-country cigarettes compared to smokers living in non-border regions.ConclusionsOverall, only a minority of smokers in the six countries purchased cheaper cigarettes outside their country. However, smokers living in regions bordering countries where cigarettes were at least €1/pack lower than their home country had significantly higher odds of purchasing cheaper out-of-country cigarettes. This effect was especially prominent among German smokers. Tax harmonization policies designed to minimize cross-border price differentials can eliminate lower-priced alternatives for price-sensitive smokers.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care has the potential to address a large proportion of people's health needs, promote equity, and contain costs, but only if it provides high-quality health services that people want to use. 40 years after the Declaration of Alma-Ata, little is known about the quality of primary care in low-income and middle-income countries. We assessed whether existing facility surveys capture relevant aspects of primary care performance and summarised the quality of primary care in ten low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsWe used Service Provision Assessment surveys, the most comprehensive nationally representative surveys of health systems, to select indicators corresponding to three of the process quality domains (competent systems, evidence-based care, and user experience) identified by the Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems in the Sustainable Development Goals Era. We calculated composite and domain quality scores for first-level primary care facilities across and within ten countries with available facility assessment data (Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda).FindingsData were available for 7049 facilities and 63 869 care visits. There were gaps in measurement of important outcomes such as user experience, health outcomes, and confidence, and processes such as timely action, choice of provider, affordability, ease of use, dignity, privacy, non-discrimination, autonomy, and confidentiality. No information about care competence was available outside maternal and child health. Overall, scores for primary care quality were low (mean 0·41 on a scale of 0 to 1). At a domain level, scores were lowest for user experience, followed by evidence-based care, and then competent systems. At the subdomain level, scores for patient focus, prevention and detection, technical quality of sick-child care, and population-health management were lower than those for other subdomains.InterpretationFacility surveys do not capture key elements of primary care quality. The available measures suggest major gaps in primary care quality. If not addressed, these gaps will limit the contribution of primary care to reaching the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:The provision of quality obstetric care in health facilities is central to reducing maternal mortality, but simply increasing childbirth in facilities not enough, with evidence that many facilities in sub-Saharan Africa do not fulfil even basic requirements for safe childbirth care. There is ongoing debate on whether to recommend a policy of birth in hospitals, where staffing and capacity may be better, over lower level facilities, which are closer to women's homes and more accessible. Little is known about the quality of childbirth care in Liberia, where facility births have increased in recent decades, but maternal mortality remains among the highest in the world. We will analyse quality in terms of readiness for emergency care and referral, staffing, and volume of births. We assessed the readiness of the Liberian health system to provide safe care during childbirth use using three data sources: Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), Service Availability and Readiness Assessments (SARA), and the Health Management Information System (HMIS). We estimated trends in the percentage of births by location and population caesarean-section coverage from 3 DHS surveys (2007, 2013 and 2019-20). We examined readiness for safe childbirth care among all Liberian health facilities by analysing reported emergency obstetric and neonatal care signal functions (EmONC) and staffing from SARA 2018, and linking with volume of births reported in HMIS 2019. The percentage of births in facilities increased from 37 to 80% between 2004 and 2017, while the caesarean section rate increased from 3.3 to 5.0%. 18% of facilities could carry out basic EmONC signal functions, and 8% could provide blood transfusion and caesarean section. Overall, 63% of facility births were in places without full basic emergency readiness. 60% of facilities could not make emergency referrals, and 54% had fewer than one birth every two days. The increase in proportions of facility births over time occurred because women gave birth in lower-level facilities. However, most facilities are very low volume, and cannot provide safe EmONC, even at the basic level. This presents the health system with a serious challenge for assuring safe, good-quality childbirth services.

Dataset Information

Assessment of human resources for health using cross-national comparison of facility surveys in six countries.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Assessment of human resources for health using cross-national comparison of facility surveys in six countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets