Dataset Information

Identifying health policy and systems research priorities for the sustainable development goals: social protection for health.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is an established body of evidence linking systems of social protection to health systems and health outcomes. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide further emphasis on this linkage as necessary to achieving health and non-health goals. Existing literature on social protection and health has focused primarily on cash transfers. We sought to identify potential research priorities concerning social protection and health in low and middle-income countries, from multiple perspectives.

Methods

Priority research questions were identified through two sources: 1) research reviews on social protection interventions and health, 2) interviews with 54 policy makers from Ministries of Health, multi-lateral or bilateral organizations, and NGOs. Data was collated and summarized using a framework analysis approach. The final refining and ranking of the questions was completed by researchers from around the globe through an online platform.

Results

The overview of reviews identified 5 main categories of social protection interventions: cash transfers; financial incentives and other demand side financing interventions; food aid and nutritional interventions; parental leave; and livelihood/social welfare interventions. Policy-makers focused on the implementation and practice of social protection and health, how social protection programs could be integrated with other sectors, and how they should be monitored/evaluated. A collated list resulted in 31 priority research questions. Scale and sustainability of social protection programs ranked highest. The top 10 research questions focused heavily on design, implementation, and context, with a range of interventions that included cash transfers, social insurance, and labor market interventions.

Conclusions

There is potentially a rich field of enquiry into the linkages between health systems and social protection programs, but research within this field has focused on a few relatively narrowly defined areas. The SDGs provide an impetus to the expansion of research of this nature, with priority setting exercises such as this helping to align funder investment with researcher effort and policy-maker evidence needs.

SUBMITTER: Qiu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6161373 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is vital to guiding global institutions, funders, policymakers, activists and implementers in developing and enacting strategies to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. We undertook a multi-stage participatory process to identify priority research questions relevant to improving accountability within health systems. We conducted interviews (n = 54) and focus group discussions (n = 2) with policymakers from international and national bodies (ministries of health, other government agencies and technical support institutions) across the WHO regions. Respondents were asked to reflect on challenges and current policy discussions related to health systems accountability, and to identify their pressing research needs. We also conducted an overview of reviews (n = 34) to determine the current status of knowledge on health systems accountability and to identify any gaps. We extracted research questions from the policymaker interviews and focus groups (70 questions) and from the overview of reviews (112 questions), and synthesized these into 36 overarching questions. Using the online platform Co-Digital, we invited researchers from around the world to refine and then rank the questions according to research importance. The questions that emerged amongst the top priorities focused on political factors that mediate the adoption or effectiveness of accountability initiatives, processes and incentives that facilitate the acceptability of accountability mechanisms among frontline healthcare providers, and the national governance reforms and contexts that enhance provider accountability. The process revealed different underlying conceptions of social accountability and how best to promote it, with some researchers and policymakers focusing on specific interventions and others embracing a more systems-oriented approach to understanding accountability, the multiple forms that it can take, how these interact with each other and the importance of power and underlying social relations. The findings from this exercise identify HPSR funding priorities and future areas for evidence production and policy engagement.

Project description:ObjectivesAchieving the Sustainable Development Goals will require data-driven public health action. There are limited publications on national health information systems that continuously generate health data. Given the need to develop these systems, we summarised their current status in low-income and middle-income countries.SettingThe survey team jointly developed a questionnaire covering policy, planning, legislation and organisation of case reporting, patient monitoring and civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems. From January until May 2017, we administered the questionnaire to key informants in 51 Centers for Disease Control country offices. Countries were aggregated for descriptive analyses in Microsoft Excel.ResultsKey informants in 15 countries responded to the questionnaire. Several key informants did not answer all questions, leading to different denominators across questions. The Ministry of Health coordinated case reporting, patient monitoring and CRVS systems in 93% (14/15), 93% (13/14) and 53% (8/15) of responding countries, respectively. Domestic financing supported case reporting, patient monitoring and CRVS systems in 86% (12/14), 75% (9/12) and 92% (11/12) of responding countries, respectively. The most common uses for system-generated data were to guide programme response in 100% (15/15) of countries for case reporting, to calculate service coverage in 92% (12/13) of countries for patient monitoring and to estimate the national burden of disease in 83% (10/12) of countries for CRVS. Systems with an electronic component were being used for case reporting, patient monitoring, birth registration and death registration in 87% (13/15), 92% (11/12), 77% (10/13) and 64% (7/11) of responding countries, respectively.ConclusionsMost responding countries have a solid foundation for policy, planning, legislation and organisation of health information systems. Further evaluation is needed to assess the quality of data generated from systems. Periodic evaluations may be useful in monitoring progress in strengthening and harmonising these systems over time.

Project description:Because health systems are conceptualized as social systems, embedded in social contexts and shaped by human agency, values are a key factor in health system change. As such, health systems software-including values, norms, ideas and relationships-is considered a foundational focus of the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR). A substantive evidence-base exploring the influence of software factors on system functioning has developed but remains fragmented, with a lack of conceptual clarity and theoretical coherence. This is especially true for work on 'social values' within health systems-for which there is currently no substantive review available. This study reports on a systematic mixed-methods evidence mapping review on social values within HPSR. The study reaffirms the centrality of social values within HPSR and highlights significant evidence gaps. Research on social values in low- and middle-income country contexts is exceedingly rare (and mostly produced by authors in high-income countries), particularly within the limited body of empirical studies on the subject. In addition, few HPS researchers are drawing on available social science methodologies that would enable more in-depth empirical work on social values. This combination (over-representation of high-income country perspectives and little empirical work) suggests that the field of HPSR is at risk of developing theoretical foundations that are not supported by empirical evidence nor broadly generalizable. Strategies for future work on social values in HPSR are suggested, including: countering pervasive ideas about research hierarchies that prize positivist paradigms and systems hardware-focused studies as more rigorous and relevant to policy-makers; utilizing available social science theories and methodologies; conceptual development to build common framings of key concepts to guide future research, founded on quality empirical research from diverse contexts; and using empirical evidence to inform the development of operationalizable frameworks that will support rigorous future research on social values in health systems.

Project description:This themed issue on global health research has come at an opportune time in the middle of the ongoing global public health crisis arising from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic which has claimed nearly 756,000 lives in 210 countries and territories around the world as of August 15, 2020. The public health crisis underscores the importance of global health research partnerships and collaborations to develop and evaluate the requisite health technologies to assist in containing COVID-19, other diseases, and health-related concerns that defy national borders. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the member countries of the United Nations in September 2015, provide a framework for global development efforts including global health research. SDG3, which promotes health and well-being for the world populations across the age spectrum, highlights disease areas for special focus which can be adapted in specific global health research programs to serve local health needs. SDG17 promotes partnerships between high income (HIC) and low and middle-income countries (LMIC) for sustainable and equitable global development. However, given the wide disparities in fiscal and overall capacity for research between researchers in HIC and their counterparts in LMIC as well as the greater vulnerabilities of the LMIC communities when serving as research locations, a spotlight on the nature of such global health research partnerships in the context of the SDGs is desirable. This is to ensure that they are meaningful and mutually-beneficial partnerships which address local health concerns and promote long-term value for the communities involved. The objective of this commentary is, therefore, to provide a brief overview of the SDGs by way of context; explore the power differences at play when researchers from HIC are seeking research opportunities in LMIC; examine the social determinants of health and the disproportionate burden of global diseases carried by populations in LMIC to establish their vulnerability; discuss global research partnerships; and attempt to make a case for why community-based participatory research may be the preferred type of global health research partnership in the context of the SDGs.