Dataset Information

Lessons from a Health Policy and Systems Research programme exploring the quality and coverage of newborn care in Kenya.

ABSTRACT: There are global calls for research to support health system strengthening in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the nature and magnitude of gaps in access and quality of inpatient neonatal care provided to a largely poor urban population, we combined multiple epidemiological and health services methodologies. Conducting this work and generating findings was made possible through extensive formal and informal stakeholder engagement linked to flexibility in the research approach while keeping overall goals in mind. We learnt that 45% of sick newborns requiring hospital care in Nairobi probably do not access a suitable facility and that public hospitals provide 70% of care accessed with private sector care either poor quality or very expensive. Direct observations of care and ethnographic work show that critical nursing workforce shortages prevent delivery of high-quality care in high volume, low-cost facilities and likely threaten patient safety and nurses’ well-being. In these challenging settings, routines and norms have evolved as collective coping strategies so health professionals maintain some sense of achievement in the face of impossible demands. Thus, the health system sustains a functional veneer that belies the stresses undermining quality, compassionate care. No one intervention will dramatically reduce neonatal mortality in this urban setting. In the short term, a substantial increase in the number of health workers, especially nurses, is required. This must be combined with longer term investment to address coverage gaps through redesign of services around functional tiers with improved information systems that support effective governance of public, private and not-for-profit sectors.

SUBMITTER: English M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7042598 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic and novelty of SARS-CoV-2 presented unprecedented challenges in the review of COVID-19 protocols. We investigated how research at the KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) was reviewed, including by institutional and national level committees. Methods: A document review and in-depth interviews with researchers, regulators and research reviewers were conducted. Documents reviewed included research logs of all protocols submitted between April-1-2020 and March-31-2021, feedback letters from review committees for 10 new COVID-19 protocols (n=42), and minutes from 35 COVID-19 research review meetings. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted with respondents purposively selected because of their experience of developing or reviewing COVID-19 protocols at the institution level (n=9 researchers, engagement officers and regulators) or their experience in reviewing proposals at a national-level (n=6 committee members). Data were managed and analyzed using MS Excel and NVivo12. Results: Between April-1-2020 and March-31-2021, 30 COVID-19-related submissions by KWTRP researchers were approved. Changes to the review system included strengthening the online system for protocol submission and review, recruiting more reviewers, and trialing a joint review process where one protocol was submitted to multiple review committees simultaneously . The turnaround time from submission to national approval/rejection over this period was faster than pre-pandemic, but slower than the national committee's target. COVID-19-specific ethics questions centred on: virtual informed consent and data collection; COVID-19 prevention, screening and testing procedures; and the challenges of study design and community engagement during the pandemic. Conclusions: The unprecedented challenges of the pandemic and added bureaucratic requirements created a more complex review process and delayed final approval of research protocols. The feasibility of conducting joint review of research during public health emergencies in Kenya needs further investigation. Consideration of the unique COVID-19 ethics issues raised in this paper might aid expedience in current and future reviews.

Project description:Health system reforms across Africa, Asia and Latin America in recent decades demonstrate the value of health policy and systems research (HPSR) in moving towards the goals of universal health coverage in different circumstances and by various means. The role of evidence in policy making is widely accepted; less well understood is the influence of the concrete conditions under which HPSR is carried out within the national context and which often determine policy outcomes. We investigated the varied experiences of HPSR in Mexico, Cambodia and Ghana (each selected purposively as a strong example reflecting important lessons under varying conditions) to illustrate the ways in which HPSR is used to influence health policy. We reviewed the academic and grey literature and policy documents, constructed three country case studies and interviewed two leading experts from each of Mexico and Cambodia and three from Ghana (using semi-structured interviews, anonymized to ensure objectivity). For the design of the study, design of the semi-structured topic guide and the analysis of results, we used a modified version of the context-based analytical framework developed by Dobrow et al. (Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Social Science & Medicine 2004;58:207-17). The results demonstrate that HPSR plays a varied but essential role in effective health policy making and that the use, implementation and outcomes of research and research-based evidence occurs inevitably within a national context that is characterized by political circumstances, the infrastructure and capacity for research and the longer-term experience with HPSR processes. This analysis of national experiences demonstrates that embedding HPSR in the policy process is both possible and productive under varying economic and political circumstances. Supporting research structures with social development legislation, establishing relationships based on trust between researchers and policy makers and building a strong domestic capacity for health systems research all demonstrate means by which the value of HPSR can be materialized in strengthening health systems.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal interest and investment in close-to-community health services is increasing. Kenya is currently revising its community health strategy (CHS) alongside political devolution, which will result in revisioning of responsibility for local services. This article aims to explore drivers of policy change from key informant perspectives and to study perceptions of current community health services from community and sub-county levels, including perceptions of what is and what is not working well. It highlights implications for managing policy change.MethodsWe conducted 40 in-depth interviews and 10 focus group discussions with a range of participants to capture plural perspectives, including those who will influence or be influenced by CHS policy change in Kenya (policymakers, sub-county health management teams, facility managers, community health extension worker (CHEW), community health workers (CHWs), clients and community members) in two purposively selected counties: Nairobi and Kitui. Qualitative data were digitally recorded, transcribed, translated and coded before framework analysis.ResultsThere is widespread community appreciation for the existing strategy. High attrition, lack of accountability for voluntary CHWs and lack of funds to pay CHW salaries, combined with high CHEW workload were seen as main drivers for strategy change. Areas for change identified include: lack of clear supervisory structure including provision of adequate travel resources, current uneven coverage and equity of community health services, limited community knowledge about the strategy revision and demand for home-based HIV testing and counselling.ConclusionThis in-depth analysis which captures multiple perspectives results in robust recommendations for strategy revision informed by the Five Wonders of Change Framework. These recommendations point towards a more people-centred health system for improved equity and effectiveness and indicate priority areas for action if success of policy change through the roll-out of the revised strategy is to be realized.

Project description:BackgroundThe control and elimination of Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) is dependent on mass administration of medicines (MAM) in communities and schools by community drug distributers (CDDs) who are supported and supervised by health facility staff (FLHF) and teachers. Understanding how to motivate, retain and optimise their performance is essential to ensure communities accept medicines. This study aimed to capture and translate knowledge, problems and solutions, identified by implementers, to enhance NTD programme delivery at the community level in Nigeria.MethodsQualitative data was collected through participatory stakeholder workshops organised around two themes: (i) identification of problems and (ii) finding solutions. Eighteen problem-focused workshops and 20 solution-focussed workshops were held with FLHF, CDDs and teachers in 12 purposively selected local government areas (LGA) across two states in Nigeria, Ogun and Kaduna States.ResultThe problems and solutions identified by frontline implementers were organised into three broad themes: technical support, social support and incentives. Areas identified for technical support included training, supervision, human resource management and workload, equipment and resources and timing of MAM implementation. Social support needs were for more equitable drug distributor selection processes, effective community sensitisation mechanisms and being associated with the health system. Incentives identified were both non-financial and financial including receiving positive community feedback and recognition and monetary remuneration. The results led to the development of the 'NTD frontline implementer's framework' which was adapted from the Community Health Worker (CHW) Generic Logic Model by Naimoli et al. (Hum Resour Health 12:56, 2014).ConclusionMaximising performance of frontline implementers is key to successful attainment of NTD goals and other health interventions. As NTDs are viewed as a 'litmus test' for universal health coverage, the lessons shared here could cut across programmes aiming to achieve equitable coverage. It is critical to strengthen the collaboration between health systems and communities so that together they can jointly provide the necessary support for frontline implementers to deliver health for all. This research presents additional evidence that involving frontline implementers in the planning and implementation of health interventions through regular feedback before, during and after implementation has the potential to strengthen health outcomes.

Project description:Universal health coverage (UHC) is important in terms of improving access to quality health care while protecting households from the risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment. However, progress to UHC has been hampered by the measures to increase mandatory prepaid funds especially in low- and middle-income countries where there are large populations in the informal sector. Important considerations in expanding coverage to the informal sector should include an exploration of the type of prepayment system that is acceptable to the informal sector and the features of such a design that would encourage prepayment for health care among this population group. The objective of the study was to document the views of informal sector workers regarding different prepayment mechanisms, and critically analyze key design features of a future health system and the policy implications of financing UHC in Kenya.This was part of larger study which involved a mixed-methods approach. The following tools were used to collect data from informal sector workers: focus group discussions [N = 16 (rural = 7; urban = 9)], individual in-depth interviews [N = 26 (rural = 14; urban = 12)] and a questionnaire survey [N = 455(rural = 129; urban = 326)]. Thematic approach was used to analyze qualitative data while Stata v.11 involving mainly descriptive analysis was used in quantitative data. The tools mentioned were used to collect data to meet various objectives of a larger study and what is presented here constitutes a small section of the data generated by these tools.The findings show that informal sector workers in rural and urban areas prefer different prepayment systems for financing UHC. Preference for a non-contributory system of financing UHC was particularly strong in the urban study site (58%). Over 70% in the rural area preferred a contributory mechanism in financing UHC. The main concern for informal sector workers regardless of the overall design of the financing approach to UHC included a poor governance culture especially one that does not punish corruption. Other reasons especially with regard to the contributory financing approach included high premium costs and inability to enforce contributions from informal sector.On average 47% of all study participants, the largest single majority, are in favor of a non-contributory financing mechanism. Strong evidence from existing literature indicates difficulties in implementing social contributions as the primary financing mechanism for UHC in contexts with large informal sector populations. Non-contributory financing should be strongly recommended to policymakers to be the primary financing mechanism and supplemented by social contributions.

Project description:ImportancePrevious work has underscored subnational inequalities that could impede additional health gains in Kenya.ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive assessment of the burden, distribution, and change in inequalities in reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH) interventions in Kenya from 2003 to 2014.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cross-sectional study used data from the 2003, 2008, and 2014 Kenya Demographic and Health Surveys. The study included women of reproductive age (ages 15-49 years) and children younger than years, with national, regional, county, and subcounty level representation. Data analysis was conducted from April 2018 to November 2018.ExposuresSocioeconomic position that was derived from asset indices and presented as wealth quintiles. Urban and rural residence and regions of Kenya were also considered.Main outcomes and measuresAbsolute and relative measures of inequality in coverage of RMNCAH interventions.ResultsFor this analysis, representative samples of 31 380 women of reproductive age and 29 743 children younger than 5 years from across Kenya were included. The RMNCAH interventions examined demonstrated pro-rich and bottom inequality patterns. The most inequitable interventions were skilled birth attendance, family planning needs satisfied, and 4 or more antenatal care visits, whereby the absolute difference in coverage between the wealthiest (quintile 5) and poorest quintiles (quintile 1) was 61.6% (95% CI, 60.1%-63.1%), 33.4% (95% CI, 31.9%-34.9%), and 31.0% (95% CI, 30.5%-31.6%), respectively. The most equitable intervention was early initiation of breastfeeding, with an absolute difference (quintile 5 minus quintile 1) of -7.9% (95% CI, -11.1% to -4.8%), although antenatal care (1 visit) and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization (3 doses) demonstrated the best combination of high coverage and low inequalities. Our geospatial analysis revealed significant socioeconomic disparities in the northern and eastern regions of Kenya that have translated to suboptimal intervention coverage. A significant gap remains for rural, disadvantaged populations.Conclusions and relevanceCoverage of RMNCAH interventions has improved over time, but wealth and geospatial inequalities in Kenya are persistent. Policy and programming efforts should place more emphasis on improving the accessibility of health facility-based interventions, which generally demonstrate poor coverage and high inequalities, and focus on integrated approaches to maternal health service delivery at the community level when access is poor. Scaling up of health services for the urban and, in particular, rural poor areas and those residing in Kenya's former north eastern province will contribute toward achievement of universal health coverage.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increasing interest in using systems thinking to tackle 'wicked' policy problems in preventive health, but this can be challenging for policy-makers because the literature is amorphous and often highly theoretical. Little is known about how best to support health policy-makers to gain skills in understanding and applying systems thinking for policy action. METHODS:In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 policy-makers who are participating in an Australian research collaboration that uses a systems approach. Our aim was to explore factors that support policy-makers to use systems approaches, and to identify any impacts of systems thinking on policy thinking or action, including the pathways through which these impacts occurred. RESULTS:All 18 policy-makers agreed that systems thinking has merit but some questioned its practical policy utility. A small minority were confused about what systems thinking is or which approaches were being used in the collaboration. The majority were engaged with systems thinking and this group identified concrete impacts on their work. They reported using systems-focused research, ideas, tools and resources in policy work that were contributing to the development of practical methodologies for policy design, scaling up, implementation and evaluation; and to new prevention narratives. Importantly, systems thinking was helping some policy-makers to reconceptualise health problems and contexts, goals, potential policy solutions and methods. In short, they were changing how they think about preventive health. CONCLUSION:These results show that researchers and policy-makers can put systems thinking into action as part of a research collaboration, and that this can result in discernible impacts on policy processes. In this case, action-oriented collaboration and capacity development over a 5-year period facilitated mutual learning and practical application. This indicates that policy-makers can get substantial applied value from systems thinking when they are involved in extended co-production processes that target policy impact and are supported by responsive capacity strategies.

Dataset Information

Lessons from a Health Policy and Systems Research programme exploring the quality and coverage of newborn care in Kenya.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets