Dataset Information

The impacts of decentralization on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: a realist synthesis of the evidence.

ABSTRACT: One constant refrain in evaluations and reviews of decentralization is that the results are mixed. But given that decentralization is a complex intervention or phenomenon, what is more important is to generate evidence to inform implementation strategies. We therefore synthesized evidence from the literature to understand why, how and under what circumstances decentralization influences health system equity, efficiency and resilience. In doing this, we adopted the realist approach to evidence synthesis and included quantitative and qualitative studies in high-, low- and middle-income countries that assessed the the impact of decentralization on health systems. We searched the Medline and Embase databases via Ovid, and the Cochrane library of systematic reviews and included 51 studies with data from 25 countries. We identified three mechanisms through which decentralization impacts on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: 'Voting with feet' (reflecting how decentralization either exacerbates or assuages the existing patterns of inequities in the distribution of people, resources and outcomes in a jurisdiction); 'Close to ground' (reflecting how bringing governance closer to the people allows for use of local initiative, information, feedback, input and control); and 'Watching the watchers' (reflecting mutual accountability and support relations between multiple centres of governance which are multiplied by decentralization, involving governments at different levels and also community health committees and health boards). We also identified institutional, socio-economic and geographic contextual factors that influence each of these mechanisms. By moving beyond findings that the effects of decentralization on health systems and outcomes are mixed, this review presents mechanisms and contextual factors to which policymakers and implementers need to pay attention in their efforts to maximize the positive and minimize the negative impact of decentralized governance.

SUBMITTER: Abimbola S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6794566 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impacts of decentralization on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: a realist synthesis of the evidence.

Abimbola Seye S Baatiema Leonard L Bigdeli Maryam M

Health policy and planning 20191001 8

One constant refrain in evaluations and reviews of decentralization is that the results are mixed. But given that decentralization is a complex intervention or phenomenon, what is more important is to generate evidence to inform implementation strategies. We therefore synthesized evidence from the literature to understand why, how and under what circumstances decentralization influences health system equity, efficiency and resilience. In doing this, we adopted the realist approach to evidence sy ...[more]

PMID: 31378811

Similar Datasets

Project description:Disasters are a recurring fact of life, and major incidents can have both immediate and long-lasting negative effects on the health and well-being of people, communities, and economies. A primary goal of many disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plans is to reduce the likelihood and severity of disaster impacts through increased resilience of individuals and communities. Unfortunately, most plans do not address directly major drivers of long-term disaster impacts on humans-that is, acute, chronic, and cumulative stress-and therefore do less to enhance resilience than they could. Stress has been shown to lead to or exacerbate ailments ranging from mental illness, domestic violence, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorders, and suicide to cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, and other infirmities. Individuals, groups, communities, organizations, and social ties are all vulnerable to stress. Based on a targeted review of what we considered to be key literature about disasters, resilience, and disaster-associated stress effects, we recommend eight actions to improve resiliency through inclusion of stress alleviation in disaster planning: (1) Improve existing disaster behavioral and physical health programs to better address, leverage, and coordinate resources for stress reduction, relief, and treatment in disaster planning and response. (2) Emphasize pre- and post-disaster collection of relevant biomarker and other health-related data to provide a baseline of health status against which disaster impacts could be assessed, and continued monitoring of these indicators to evaluate recovery. (3) Enhance capacity of science and public health early-responders. (4) Use natural infrastructure to minimize disaster damage. (5) Expand the geography of disaster response and relief to better incorporate the displacement of affected people. (6) Utilize nature-based treatment to alleviate pre- and post-disaster stress effects on health. (7) Review disaster laws, policies, and regulations to identify opportunities to strengthen public health preparedness and responses including for stress-related impacts, better engage affected communities, and enhance provision of health services. (8) With community participation, develop and institute equitable processes pre-disaster for dealing with damage assessments, litigation, payments, and housing.

Project description:BACKGROUND: A critical challenge in the health sector in developing countries is to ensure the quality and effectiveness of surveillance and public health response in an environment of decentralization. In Georgia, a country where there has been extensive decentralization of public health responsibilities over the last decade, an intervention was recently piloted to strengthen district-level local vaccine-preventable disease surveillance and response activities through improved capacity to analyze and use routinely collected data. The purpose of the study is 1) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention on motivation and perceived capacity to analyze and use information at the district-level, and 2) to assess the role that individual- and system-level factors play in influencing the effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS: A pre-post quasi-experimental research design is used for the quantitative evaluation. Data come from a baseline and two follow-up surveys of district-level health staff in 12 intervention and 3 control Center of Public Health (CPH) offices. These data were supplemented by record reviews in CPH offices as well as focus group discussions among CPH and health facility staff. RESULTS: The results of the study suggest that a number of expected improvements in perceived data availability and analysis occurred following the implementation of the intervention package, and that these improvements in analysis could be attributable to the intervention package. However, the study results also suggest that there exist several health systems barriers that constrained the effectiveness of the intervention in influencing the availability of data, analysis and response. CONCLUSION: To strengthen surveillance and response systems in Georgia, as well as in other countries, donor, governments, and other stakeholders should consider how health systems factors influence investments to improve the availability of data, analysis, and response. Linking the intervention to broader health sector reforms in management processes and organizational culture will be critical to ensure that efforts designed to promote evidence-based decision-making are successful, especially as they are scaled up to the national level.

Project description:BackgroundAssessments over the last two decades have showed an overall low level of performance of the health system in Indonesia with wide variation between districts. The reasons advanced for these low levels of performance include the low level of public funding for health and the lack of discretion for health system managers at the district level. When, in 2001, Indonesia implemented a radical decentralization and significantly increased the central transfer of funds to district governments it was widely expected that the performance of the health system would improve. This paper assesses the extent to which the performance of the health system has improved since decentralization.MethodsWe measured a set of indicators relevant to assessing changes in performance of the health system between two surveys in three areas: utilization of maternal antenatal and delivery care; immunization coverage; and contraceptive source and use. We also measured respondents' demographic characteristics and their living circumstances. These measurements were made in population-based surveys in 10 districts in 2002-03 and repeated in 2007 in the same 10 districts using the same instruments and sampling methods.ResultsThe dominant providers of maternal and child health in these 10 districts are in the private sector. There was a significant decrease in birth deliveries at home, and a corresponding increase in deliveries in health facilities in 5 of the 10 districts, largely due to increased use of private facilities with little change in the already low use of public facilities. Overall, there was no improvement in vaccination of mothers and their children. Of those using modern contraceptive methods, the majority obtained them from the private sector in all districts.ConclusionsThere has been little improvement in the performance of the health system since decentralization occurred in 2001 even though there have also been significant increases in public funding for health. In fact, the decentralization has been limited in extent and structural problems make management of the system as a whole difficult. At the national level there has been no real attempt to envision the health system that Indonesia will need for the next 20 to 30 years or how the substantial public subsidy to this lightly regulated private system could be used in creative ways to stimulate innovation, mitigate market failures, improve equity and quality, and to enhance the performance of the system as a whole.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to improve the understanding of the characteristics of health system resilience in Myanmar's response to Cyclone Nargis and to explore ways to improve resilience at the system level.Design and settingThis is an explanatory qualitative study exploring the institutional capacity of resilience in Myanmar's health system. Analysis proceeded using a data-driven thematic analysis closely following the framework method. This process enabled comparisons and contrasts of key emergent themes between the participants, which later generated key results describing the foundational assets, barriers and opportunities for achieving resilience in Myanmar.ParticipantsThe study comprised of 12 in-depth interviews conducted with representatives from international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The inclusion criteria to recruiting the participants were that they had directly been a part of the Cyclone Nargis response at the time. There was a balanced distribution of participants across UN, bilateral and NGOs, and most of them were either Myanmar citizens or expatriates with extensive working experience based in Myanmar.ResultsKey findings elucidate the characteristics of resilience that have been salient or absent in Myanmar's response to Cyclone Nargis. Strong social capital and motivation propelled by its deep-rooted culture and religion served as Myanmar's greatest assets that filled major gaps in the system. Meanwhile, its postcolonial and military legacy posed barriers towards investing in building its long-term foundations towards resilience.ConclusionsThis study revealed that resilience in the health system can be built through strategic investments towards building the foundations of resilience to better prepare for future shocks. In the case of Myanmar, social capital and motivation, which surfaced as its foundational assets, can be channelled into opportunities that can help achieve its long-term health goals, accelerating its journey towards resilience in the health system.

Project description:UnlabelledPOLICY POINTS: Many barriers hamper advocacy for health equity, including the contemporary economic zeitgeist, the biomedical health perspective, and difficulties cooperating across policy sectors on the issue. Effective advocacy should include persistent efforts to raise awareness and understanding of the social determinants of health. Education on the social determinants as part of medical training should be encouraged, including professional training within disadvantaged communities. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.ContextHealth inequalities are systematic differences in health among social groups that are caused by unequal exposure to-and distributions of-the social determinants of health (SDH). They are persistent between and within countries despite action to reduce them. Advocacy is a means of promoting policies that improve health equity, but the literature on how to do so effectively is dispersed. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence in the academic and gray literature and to provide a body of knowledge for advocates to draw on to inform their efforts.MethodsThis article is a systematic review of the academic literature and a fixed-length systematic search of the gray literature. After applying our inclusion criteria, we analyzed our findings according to our predefined dimensions of advocacy for health equity. Last, we synthesized our findings and made a critical appraisal of the literature.FindingsThe policy world is complex, and scientific evidence is unlikely to be conclusive in making decisions. Timely qualitative, interdisciplinary, and mixed-methods research may be valuable in advocacy efforts. The potential impact of evidence can be increased by "packaging" it as part of knowledge transfer and translation. Increased contact between researchers and policymakers could improve the uptake of research in policy processes. Researchers can play a role in advocacy efforts, although health professionals and disadvantaged people, who have direct contact with or experience of hardship, can be particularly persuasive in advocacy efforts. Different types of advocacy messages can accompany evidence, but messages should be tailored to advocacy target. Several barriers hamper advocacy efforts. The most frequently cited in the academic literature are the current political and economic zeitgeist and related public opinion, which tend to blame disadvantaged people for their ill health, even though biomedical approaches to health and political short-termism also act as barriers. These barriers could be tackled through long-term actions to raise public awareness and understanding of the SDH and through training of health professionals in advocacy. Advocates need to take advantage of "windows of opportunity," which open and close quickly, and demonstrate expertise and credibility.ConclusionsThis article brings together for the first time evidence from the academic and the gray literature and provides a building block for efforts to advocate for health equity. Evidence regarding many of the dimensions is scant, and additional research is merited, particularly concerning the applicability of findings outside the English-speaking world. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity, given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.

Project description:BackgroundNatural and human-made public health emergencies (PHEs), such as armed conflicts, floods, and disease outbreaks, influence health systems including interruption of delivery and utilization of health services, and increased health service needs. However, the intensity and types of impacts of these PHEs vary across countries due to several associated factors. This scoping review aimed to synthesise available evidence on PHEs, their preparedness, impacts, and responses.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of published evidence. Studies were identified using search terms related to two concepts: health security and primary health care. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines to select studies. We adapted the review framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach and explained under three stages of PHEs: preparedness, impacts, and responses.ResultsA total of 64 studies were included in this review. Health systems of many low- and middle-income countries had inadequate preparedness to absorb the shocks of PHEs, limited surveillance, and monitoring of risks. Health systems have been overburdened with interrupted health services, increased need for health services, poor health resilience, and health inequities. Strategies of response to the impact of PHEs included integrated services such as public health and primary care, communication and partnership across sectors, use of digital tools, multisectoral coordination and actions, system approach to responses, multidisciplinary providers, and planning for resilient health systems.ConclusionsPublic health emergencies have high impacts in countries with weak health systems, inadequate preparedness, and inadequate surveillance mechanisms. Better health system preparedness is required to absorb the impact, respond to the consequences, and adapt for future PHEs. Some potential response strategies could be ensuring need-based health services, monitoring and surveillance of post-emergency outbreaks, and multisectoral actions to engage sectors to address the collateral impacts of PHEs. Mitigation strategies for future PHEs could include risk assessment, disaster preparedness, and setting digital alarm systems for monitoring and surveillance.

Project description:Policy Points: For more than 3 decades, international development agencies have advocated health system decentralization to improve health system performance in low- and middle-income countries. We found little rigorous evidence documenting the impact of decentralization processes on health system performance or outcomes in part due to challenges in measuring such far-reaching and multifaceted system-level changes. We propose a renewed research agenda that focuses on discrete definitions of decentralization and how institutional factors and mechanisms affect health system performance and outcomes within the general context of decentralized governance structures.ContextDespite the widespread adoption of decentralization reforms as a means to improve public service delivery in developing countries since the 1980s, empirical evidence of the role of decentralization on health system improvement is still limited and inconclusive. This study reviewed studies published from 2000 to 2016 with adequate research designs to identify evidence on whether and how decentralization processes have impacted health systems.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles from the public health and social science literature. We searched for articles within 9 databases using predefined search terms reflecting decentralization and health system constructs. Inclusion criteria were original research articles, low- and middle-income country settings, quantifiable outcome measures, and study designs that use comparisons or statistical adjustments. We excluded studies in high-income country settings and/or published in a non-English language.FindingsSixteen studies met our prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria and were grouped based on outcomes measured: health system inputs (n = 3), performance (n = 7), and health outcomes (n = 7). Numerous studies addressing conceptual issues related to decentralization but without any attempt at empirical estimation were excluded. Overall, we found mixed results regarding the effects of decentralization on health system indicators with seemingly beneficial effects on health system performance and health outcomes. Only 10 studies were considered to have relatively low risks of bias.ConclusionsThis study reveals the limited empirical knowledge of the impact of decentralization on health system performance. Mixed empirical findings on the role of decentralization on health system performance and outcomes highlight the complexity of decentralization processes and their systemwide effects. Thus, we propose a renewed research agenda that focuses on discrete definitions of decentralization and how institutional factors and mechanisms affect health system performance and outcomes within the general context of decentralized governance structures.

Dataset Information

The impacts of decentralization on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: a realist synthesis of the evidence.

Publications

The impacts of decentralization on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: a realist synthesis of the evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets