Dataset Information

The development of a new accountability measurement framework and tool for global health initiatives.

ABSTRACT: The Global Strategy for Women's Children's and Adolescents' Health emphasizes accountability as essential to ensure that decision-makers have the information required to meet the health needs of their populations and stresses the importance of tracking resources, results, and rights to see 'what works, what needs improvement and what requires increased attention'. However, results from accountability initiatives are mixed and there is a lack of broadly applicable, validated tools for planning, monitoring and evaluating accountability interventions. This article documents an effort to transform accountability markers-including political will, leadership and the monitor-review-act cycle-into a measurement tool that can be used prospectively or retrospectively to plan, monitor and evaluate accountability initiatives. It describes the development process behind the tool including the literature review, framework development and subsequent building of the measurement tool itself. It also examines feedback on the tool from a panel of global experts and the results of a pilot test conducted in Bauchi and Gombe states in Nigeria. The results demonstrate that the tool is an effective aid for accountability initiatives to reflect on their own progress and provides a useful structure for future planning, monitoring and evaluation. The tool can be applied and adapted to other accountability mechanisms working in global health.

SUBMITTER: Martin Hilber A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7487333 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The development of a new accountability measurement framework and tool for global health initiatives.

Martin Hilber Adriane A Doherty Patricia P Nove Andrea A Cullen Rachel R Segun Tunde T Bandali Sarah S

Health policy and planning 20200801 7

The Global Strategy for Women's Children's and Adolescents' Health emphasizes accountability as essential to ensure that decision-makers have the information required to meet the health needs of their populations and stresses the importance of tracking resources, results, and rights to see 'what works, what needs improvement and what requires increased attention'. However, results from accountability initiatives are mixed and there is a lack of broadly applicable, validated tools for planning, m ...[more]

PMID: 32494815

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Citizen-led accountability initiatives are a critical strategy for redressing the causes of health inequalities and promoting better health system governance. A growing body of evidence points to the need for putting power relations at the forefront of understanding and operationalizing citizen-led accountability, rather than technical tools and best practices. In this study, we apply a network lens to the question of how initiatives build collective power to redress health system failures affecting marginalized communities in three municipalities in Guatemala.Methods:Network mapping and interpretive discussions were used to examine relational qualities of citizen-led initiatives' networks and explore the resources they offer for mobilizing action and influencing health accountability. Participants in the municipal-level initiatives responded to a social network analysis questionnaire focused on their ties of communication and collaboration with other initiative participants and their interactions with authorities regarding health system problems. Discussions with participants about the maps generated enriched our view of what the ties represented and their history of collective action and also provided space for planning action to strengthen their networks.Results:Our findings indicate that network qualities like cohesiveness and centralization reflected the initiative participants' agency in adapting to their sociopolitical context, and participants' social positions were a key resource in providing connection to a broad base of support for mobilizing collective action to document health service deficiencies and advocate for solutions. Their legitimacy as "representatives of the people" enabled them to engage with authorities from a bolstered position of power, and their iterative interactions with authorities further contributed to develop their advocacy capabilities and resulted in accountability gains.Conclusions:Our study provided evidence to counter the tendency to underestimate the assets and capabilities that marginalized citizens have for building power, and affirmed the idea that best-fit, with-the-grain approaches are well-suited for highly unequal settings characterized by weak governance. Efforts to support and understand change processes in citizen-led initiatives should include focus on adaptive network building to enable contextually-embedded approaches that leverage the collective power of the users of health services and grassroots leaders on the frontlines of accountability.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care databases contain a wealth of information that can be used to develop programs and mature health care systems. There is concern that the sensitive nature of health data (eg, ethnicity, reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, and lifestyle information) can have significant impact on individuals if misused, particularly among vulnerable and marginalized populations. As academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and international agencies begin to collaborate with low- and middle-income countries to develop and deploy health information technology (HIT), it is important to understand the technical and practical security implications of these initiatives.ObjectiveOur aim is to develop a conceptual framework for risk stratification of global health data partnerships and HIT projects. In addition to identifying key conceptual domains, we map each domain to a variety of publicly available indices that could be used to inform a quantitative model.MethodsWe conducted an overview of the literature to identify relevant publications, position statements, white papers, and reports. The research team reviewed all sources and used the framework method and conceptual framework analysis to name and categorize key concepts, integrate them into domains, and synthesize them into an overarching conceptual framework. Once key domains were identified, public international data sources were searched for relevant structured indices to generate quantitative counterparts.ResultsWe identified 5 key domains to inform our conceptual framework: State of HIT, Economics of Health Care, Demographics and Equity, Societal Freedom and Safety, and Partnership and Trust. Each of these domains was mapped to a number of structured indices.ConclusionsThere is a complex relationship among the legal, economic, and social domains of health care, which affects the state of HIT in low- and middle-income countries and associated data security risks. The strength of partnership and trust among collaborating organizations is an important moderating factor. Additional work is needed to formalize the assessment of partnership and trust and to develop a quantitative model of the conceptual framework that can help support organizational decision-making.

Project description:Scaling up complex health interventions to large populations is not a straightforward task. Without intentional, guided efforts to scale up, it can take many years for a new evidence-based intervention to be broadly implemented. For the past decade, researchers and implementers have developed models of scale-up that move beyond earlier paradigms that assumed ideas and practices would successfully spread through a combination of publication, policy, training, and example. Drawing from the previously reported frameworks for scaling up health interventions and our experience in the USA and abroad, we describe a framework for taking health interventions to full scale, and we use two large-scale improvement initiatives in Africa to illustrate the framework in action. We first identified other scale-up approaches for comparison and analysis of common constructs by searching for systematic reviews of scale-up in health care, reviewing those bibliographies, speaking with experts, and reviewing common research databases (PubMed, Google Scholar) for papers in English from peer-reviewed and "gray" sources that discussed models, frameworks, or theories for scale-up from 2000 to 2014. We then analyzed the results of this external review in the context of the models and frameworks developed over the past 20 years by Associates in Process Improvement (API) and the Institute for Healthcare improvement (IHI). Finally, we reflected on two national-scale improvement initiatives that IHI had undertaken in Ghana and South Africa that were testing grounds for early iterations of the framework presented in this paper.The framework describes three core components: a sequence of activities that are required to get a program of work to full scale, the mechanisms that are required to facilitate the adoption of interventions, and the underlying factors and support systems required for successful scale-up. The four steps in the sequence include (1) Set-up, which prepares the ground for introduction and testing of the intervention that will be taken to full scale; (2) Develop the Scalable Unit, which is an early testing phase; (3) Test of Scale-up, which then tests the intervention in a variety of settings that are likely to represent different contexts that will be encountered at full scale; and (4) Go to Full Scale, which unfolds rapidly to enable a larger number of sites or divisions to adopt and/or replicate the intervention.Our framework echoes, amplifies, and systematizes the three dominant themes that occur to varying extents in a number of existing scale-up frameworks. We call out the crucial importance of defining a scalable unit of organization. If a scalable unit can be defined, and successful results achieved by implementing an intervention in this unit without major addition of resources, it is more likely that the intervention can be fully and rapidly scaled. When tying this framework to quality improvement (QI) methods, we describe a range of methodological options that can be applied to each of the four steps in the framework's sequence.

Project description:BackgroundThree global health initiatives (GHIs) - the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the World Bank Multi-Country HIV/AIDS Program - finance most HIV services in Nigeria. Critics assert that GHIs burden fragile health systems in resource-poor countries and that health system limitations in these countries constrain the achievement of the objectives of GHIs. This study analyzed interactions between HIV GHIs and the Nigerian Health System and explored how the impact of the GHIs could be optimized.MethodsA country case study was conducted using qualitative methods, including: semi-structured interviews, direct observation, and archival review. Semi-structured interviews were held with key informants selected to reach a broad range of stakeholders including policymakers, program managers, service providers, representatives of donor agencies and their implementing partners; the WHO country office in Nigeria; independent consultants; and civil society organizations involved in HIV work. The fieldwork was conducted between June and August 2013.FindingsHIV GHIs have had a mixed impact on the health system. They have enhanced availability of and access to HIV services, improved quality of services, and strengthened health information systems and the role of non-state actors in health care. On the negative end, HIV donor funding has increased dependency on foreign aid, widened disparities in access to HIV services, done little to address the sustainability of the services, crowded out non-HIV health services, and led to the development of a parallel supply management system. They have also not invested significantly in the production of new health workers and have not addressed maldistribution problems, but have rather contributed to internal brain drain by luring health workers from the public sector to non-governmental organizations and have increased workload for existing health workers. There is poor policy direction, strategic planning and coordination, and regulation of externally-financed HIV programs by the government and this poses a great limitation to the optimal use of HIV-specific foreign aid in Nigeria.ConclusionsA few reforms are necessary to improve the strengthening effect of GHIs and to minimize their negative and unintended consequences. This will require stronger leadership from the Nigerian government with regards to better coordination of externally-financed health programs. Also, donors need to play a greater role in addressing the negative consequences of foreign aid. The findings highlight important unintended consequences and system-wide impacts that get little attention in traditional program evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundFurther improvements in population health in low- and middle-income countries demand high-quality care to address an increasingly complex burden of disease. Health facility surveys provide an important but costly source of information on readiness to provide care. To improve the efficiency of health system measurement, we applied unsupervised machine learning methods to assess the performance of the service readiness index (SRI) defined by the World Health Organization and compared it to empirically derived indices.MethodsWe drew data from nationally representative Service Provision Assessment surveys conducted in 10 countries between 2007 and 2015. We extracted 649 items in domains such as infrastructure, medication, and management to calculate an index using all available information and classified facilities into quintiles. We compared three approaches against the full item set: the SRI, a new index based on sequential backward selection, and an enriched SRI that added empirically selected items to the SRI. We evaluated index performance with a cross-validated kappa statistic comparing classification using the candidate index against the 649-item index.Results9238 facilities were assessed. The 49-item SRI performed poorly against the index using all 649 items, with a kappa value of 0.35. New empirically derived indices with 50 and 100 items captured much more information, with cross-validated kappa statistics of 0.71 and 0.80, respectively. Items varied across the indices and in sensitivity analyses. A 100-item enriched SRI reliably captured the information from the full index: 83% of the facilities were classified into correct quintiles of service readiness based on the full index.ConclusionA facility readiness measure developed by global health experts performed poorly in capturing the totality of readiness information collected during facility surveys. Using a machine learning approach with sequential selection and cross-validation to identify the most informative items dramatically improved performance. Such approaches can make assessment of health facility readiness more efficient. Further improvements in measurement will require identification of external criteria-such as patient outcomes-to guide and validate measure development.

Dataset Information

The development of a new accountability measurement framework and tool for global health initiatives.

Publications

The development of a new accountability measurement framework and tool for global health initiatives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets