Dataset Information

Policy options for surgical mentoring: Lessons from Zambia based on stakeholder consultation and systems science.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Supervision by surgical specialists is beneficial because they can impart skills to district hospital-level surgical teams. The SURG-Africa project in Zambia comprises a mentoring trial in selected districts, involving two provincial-level mentoring teams. The aim of this paper is to explore policy options for embedding such surgical mentoring in existing policy structures through a participatory modeling approach.

Methods

Four group model building workshops were held, two each in district and central hospitals. Participants worked in a variety of institutions and had clinical and/or administrative backgrounds. Two independent reviewers compared the causal loop diagrams (CLDs) that resulted from these workshops in a pairwise fashion to construct an integrated CLD. Graph theory was used to analyze the integrated CLD, and dynamic system behavior was explored using the Method to Analyse Relations between Variables using Enriched Loops (MARVEL) method.

Results

The establishment of a provincial mentoring faculty, in collaboration with key stakeholders, would be a necessary step to coordinate and sustain surgical mentoring and to monitor district-level surgical performance. Quarterly surgical mentoring reviews at the provincial level are recommended to evaluate and, if needed, adapt mentoring. District hospital administrators need to closely monitor mentee motivation.

Conclusions

Surgical mentoring can play a key role in scaling up district-level surgery but its implementation is complex and requires designated provincial level coordination and regular contact with relevant stakeholders.

SUBMITTER: Broekhuizen H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8480833 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Lisbon Strategy was adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the European Union (EU) in 2000. By moving science into a central position for the development of a European knowledge-based economy and society, its adoption at political level seems to have been a powerful catalyst for the increased involvement of scientists in science policy in the EU. Recognising the need for scientists to act collectively in order to contribute to shape the future of science policy in Europe, a pioneering group of European science organisations leaders and representatives, as well as other scientists, initiated a European, interdisciplinary, inclusive movement leading to the creation of the European Research Council (ERC) to support basic research of the highest quality. Having scientists' campaign for the funding of bottom-up research by the EU Framework Programmes exclusively on scientific grounds, and for an ERC, was a unique event in the recent history of European science policy. For the first time, the scientific community acted collectively and across disciplinary or national boundaries as a political actor for the sake of a better science policy for Europe. As is often the case when first-hand experience is gained through the creation of a new organization, novel forms of collaboration arise. The European biomedical community has recently proposed the creation of a strategic action plan for health research (the European Council of Health Research; EuCHR), provisionally translated at present into a Scientific Panel for Health (SPH) research in Horizon 2020, the EU's research-funding programme for the period 2014-2020. The creation of such Scientific Panel should be viewed as an important contribution by the biomedical community as a major political agreement has been reached on the need for a comprehensive and long-term scientific strategy to accelerate research and facilitate innovation at EU level. It is our belief that describing and analyzing the process leading to the creation of the ERC and SPH (2002-2014) should be widely shared with the research community in general, as this may contribute to the understanding of the evolving relations between scientists and science-policy making.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past three decades, allocation of foreign currency subsidies has been the primary strategy of various administrations in Iran to improve access to medicines. This strategy has resulted in several challenges, including stakeholder conflicts of interest.ObjectiveTo identify the power, interest, and role of the stakeholders in allocating foreign currency subsidies to medicines in the Iranian health system.MethodsIn this qualitative study, 39 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Key informants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique. The theoretical framework adopted by Varvasovszky and Brugha was employed. The data were analysed using directed content analysis.ResultsThe foreign currency subsidy for medicines included 21 stakeholders in five main categories: governmental organizations, Iranian Parliament, general population, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the pharmaceutical industry. Stakeholders varied in their level of participation and support in the policy-making process. Among them, the Iranian Government, Planning and Budget Organization, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoHME), and Iran Food and Drug Administration (IFDA) were the most important stakeholders, with highly supportive positions, while domestic drug manufacturers were the strongest opponents of this policy. The Government of Iran is the most powerful institution with regard to the ability to allocate foreign currency subsidies to medicines, followed by the MoHME and the IFDA.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that identifying and analysing the stakeholders involved in allocating foreign currency subsidies to medicines can provide valuable information for policy-makers to enable a more comprehensive understanding and better capacity to determine whether or not to eliminate these subsidies. Moreover, decision-making in this process is a long-term issue that requires consensus among all stakeholders. Because of the political and social consequences of eliminating foreign currency subsidies, the necessary political will is not institutionalized. We recommend a step-by-step approach in eliminating foreign currency subsidies if the requirements are met (i.e., those related to the consequences of such interventions). Therefore, revision of the current policy along with these requirements, in addition to financial transparency and enhanced efficiency, will facilitate progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by improving access to medicines.