Subscribe: Health Policy and Planning - Advance Access
http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/rss/ahead.xml
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
biomedicine  disease specific  financing  health policy  health  methods  mixed methods  mixed  pluralism  specific  studies  systems  team 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Health Policy and Planning - Advance Access

Health Policy and Planning Advance Access





Published: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT

Last Build Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 02:44:34 GMT

 



How far is mixed methods research in the field of health policy and systems in Africa? A scoping review

Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT

Abstract
Both the academic and the policy community are calling for wider application of mixed methods research, suggesting that combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods is most suitable to assess and understand the complexities of health interventions. In spite of recent growth in mixed methods studies, limited efforts have been directed towards appraising and synthetizing to what extent and how mixed methods have been applied specifically to Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed at filling this gap in knowledge, by exploring the scope and quality of mixed methods research in the African context. We conducted a scoping review applying the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley and modified by Levac et al. to identify and extract data from relevant studies published between 1950 and 2013. We limited our search to peer-reviewed HPSR publications in English, which combined at least one qualitative and one quantitative method and focused on Africa. Among the 105 studies that were retained for data extraction, over 60% were published after 2010. Nearly 50% of all studies addressed topics relevant to Health Systems, while Health Policy and Health Outcomes studies accounted respectively for 40% and 10% of all publications. The quality of the application of mixed methods varied greatly across studies, with a relatively small proportion of studies stating clearly defined research questions and differentiating quantitative and qualitative elements, including sample sizes and analytical approaches. The methodological weaknesses observed could be linked to the paucity of specific training opportunities available to people interested in applying mixed methods to HPSR in LMICs as well as to the limitations on word limit, scope and peer-review processes at the journals levels. Increasing training opportunities and enhancing journal flexibility may result in more and better quality mixed methods publications.



Three plural medical systems in East Asia: interpenetrative pluralism in China, exclusionary pluralism in Korea and subjugatory pluralism in Japan

Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT

Abstract
Amid persistent interest in and concerns about traditional, complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) in low-, middle- and high-income countries, the global community of healthcare is in need of learning ways to institutionalize TCAM with biomedicine. By investigating how traditional East Asian medicine (TEAM), one of the most popular forms of TCAM in the world, is institutionalized in China, Korea and Japan, this study finds three different ways of instituting a plural medical system in which TCAM and biomedicine intersect with each other. In the interpenetrative pluralism in China and the exclusionary pluralism in Korea, TEAM and biomedicine are institutionalized as independent and equivalent systems of medical practices. However, TEAM and biomedicine are conditioned to cross over into each other unconditionally in practice in the former, whereas the two exclude each other very strictly in the latter. In the subjugatory pluralism in Japan, the crisscrossing of TEAM and biomedicine is allowed, yet in an asymmetrical way whereby the practice of TEAM is dependent upon and subordinated into biomedicine. The practice of various TEAM modalities is overseen by TEAM doctors, biomedicine doctors or integrative TEAM–biomedicine doctors in interpenetrative pluralism, by TEAM doctors only in exclusionary pluralism, and by biomedicine doctors only in subjugatory pluralism. These varying characteristics demonstrate a variety of plural medical systems. They also provide useful cues in accounting for the varying behaviours of medical service providers and users who encounter TCAM as well as biomedicine in their everyday practices. In addition, the growing literature about the outcomes of TCAM and plural medical systems can take advantage of these findings.



Sector-wide or disease-specific? Implications of trends in development assistance for health for the SDG era

Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT

Abstract
The record of the Millennium Development Goals broadly reflects the trade-offs of disease-specific financing: substantial progress in particular areas, facilitated by time-bound targets that are easy to measure and communicate, which shifted attention and resources away from other areas, masked inequalities and exacerbated fragmentation. In many ways, the Sustainable Development Goals reflect a profound shift towards a more holistic, system-wide approach. To inform responses to this shift, this article builds upon existing work on aggregate trends in donor financing, bringing together what have largely been disparate analyses of sector-wide and disease-specific financing approaches. Looking across the last 26 years, the article examines how international donors have allocated development assistance for health (DAH) between these two approaches and how attempts to bridge them have fared in practice. Since 1990, DAH has overwhelmingly favoured disease-specific earmarks over health sector support, with the latter peaking in 1998. Attempts to integrate system strengthening elements into disease-specific funding mechanisms have varied by disease, and more integrated funding platforms have failed to gain traction. Health sector support largely remains an unfulfilled promise: proportionately low amounts (albeit absolute increases) which have been inconsistently allocated, and the overall approach inconsistently applied in practice. Thus, the expansive orientation of the Sustainable Development Goals runs counter to trends over the last several decades. Financing proposals and efforts to adapt global health institutions must acknowledge and account for the persistent challenges in the financing and implementation of integrated, cross-sector policies. National and subnational experimentation may offer alternatives within and beyond the health sector.



Evaluation of results-based financing in the Republic of the Congo: a comparison group pre–post study

Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT

Abstract
Results-based financing (RBF) has been advocated and increasingly scaled up in low- and middle-income countries to increase utilization and quality of key primary care services, thereby reducing maternal and child mortality rates. This pilot RBF study in the Republic of the Congo from 2012 to 2014 used a quasi-experimental research design. The authors conducted pre- and post-household surveys and gathered health facility services data from both intervention and comparison groups. Using a difference-in-differences approach, the study evaluated the impact of RBF on maternal and child health services. The household survey found statistically significant improvements in quality of services regarding the availability of medicines, perceived quality of care, hygiene of health facilities and being respected at the reception desk. The health facility survey showed no adverse effects and significantly favourable impacts on: curative visits, patient referral, children receiving vitamin A, HIV testing of pregnant women and assisted deliveries. These improvements, in relative terms, ranged from 42% (assisted deliveries) to 155% (children receiving vitamin A). However, the household survey found no statistically significant impacts on the five indicators measuring the use of maternal health services, including the percentage of pregnant women using prenatal care, 3+ prenatal care, postnatal care, assisted delivery, and family planning. Surprisingly, RBF was found to be associated with a reduction of coverage of the third diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus immunization among children in the household survey. From the health facility survey, no association was found between RBF and full immunization among children. Overall, the study shows a favourable impact of an RBF programme on most, but not all, targeted maternal and child health services. Several aspects of programme implementation, such as timely disbursement of incentives, monitoring health facility performance, and transparency of using funds could be further strengthened to maximize RBF’s impact.