The effect of report cards on the coverage of maternal and neonatal health care: a factorial, cluster-randomised controlled trial in Uttar Pradesh, India

Exploring the content and delivery of feedback facilitation co-interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Policymakers and researchers recommend supporting the capabilities of feedback recipients to increase the quality of care. There are different ways to support capabilities. We aimed to describe the content and delivery of feedback facilitation interventions delivered alongside audit and feedback within randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We included papers describing feedback facilitation identified by the latest Cochrane review of audit and feedback. The piloted extraction proforma was based upon a framework to describe intervention content, with additional prompts relating to the identification of influences, selection of improvement actions and consideration of priorities and implications. We describe the content and delivery graphically, statistically and narratively.

RESULTS

We reviewed 146 papers describing 104 feedback facilitation interventions. Across included studies, feedback facilitation contained 26 different implementation strategies. There was a median of three implementation strategies per intervention and evidence that the number of strategies per intervention is increasing. Theory was used in 35 trials, although the precise role of theory was poorly described. Ten studies provided a logic model and six of these described their mechanisms of action. Both the exploration of influences and the selection of improvement actions were described in 46 of the feedback facilitation interventions; we describe who undertook this tailoring work. Exploring dose, there was large variation in duration (15-1800 min), frequency (1 to 42 times) and number of recipients per site (1 to 135). There were important gaps in reporting, but some evidence that reporting is improving over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in the design of feedback facilitation needs to be considered when assessing the intervention's effectiveness. We describe explicit feedback facilitation choices for future intervention developers based upon choices made to date. We found the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to be valuable when describing intervention components, with the potential for some minor clarifications in terms and for greater specificity by intervention providers. Reporting demonstrated extensive gaps which hinder both replication and learning. Feedback facilitation providers are recommended to close reporting gaps that hinder replication. Future work should seek to address the 'opportunity' for improvement activity, defined as factors that lie outside the individual that make care or improvement behaviour possible.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

The study protocol was published at: https://www.protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02 .

Reflective questioning to guide socially just global health reform: a narrative review and expert elicitation

Recent research has highlighted the impacts of colonialism and racism in global health, yet few studies have presented concrete steps toward addressing the problems. We conducted a narrative review to identify published evidence that documented guiding frameworks for enhancing equity and inclusion in global health research and practice (GHRP). Based on this narrative review, we developed a questionnaire with a series of reflection questions related on commonly reported challenges related to diversity, inclusion, equity, and power imbalances. To reach consensus on a set of priority questions relevant to each theme, the questionnaire was sent to a sample of 18 global health experts virtually and two rounds of iterations were conducted. Results identified eight thematic areas and 19 reflective questions that can assist global health researchers and practitioners striving to implement socially just global health reforms. Key elements identified for improving GHRP include: (1) aiming to understand the historical context and power dynamics within the areas touched by the program; (2) promoting and mobilizing local stakeholders and leadership and ensuring measures for their participation in decision-making; (3) ensuring that knowledge products are co-produced and more equitably accessible; (4) establishing a more holistic feedback and accountability system to understand needed reforms based on local perspectives; and (5) applying systems thinking to addressing challenges and encouraging approaches that can be sustained long-term. GHRP professionals should reflect more deeply on how their goals align with those of their in-country collaborators. The consistent application of reflective processes has the potential to shift GHRP towards increased equity.

Impact of health system governance on healthcare quality in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Improving healthcare quality in low-/middle-income countries (LMICs) is a critical step in the pathway to Universal Health Coverage and health-related sustainable development goals. This study aimed to map the available evidence on the impacts of health system governance interventions on the quality of healthcare services in LMICs.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the literature. The search strategy used a combination of keywords and phrases relevant to health system governance, quality of healthcare and LMICs. Studies published in English until August 2023, with no start date limitation, were searched on PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and ProQuest. Additional publications were identified by snowballing. The effects reported by the studies on processes of care and quality impacts were reviewed.

RESULTS

The findings from 201 primary studies were grouped under (1) leadership, (2) system design, (3) accountability and transparency, (4) financing, (5) private sector partnerships, (6) information and monitoring; (7) participation and engagement and (8) regulation.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a stronger evidence base linking improved quality of care with health financing, private sector partnerships and community participation and engagement strategies. The evidence related to leadership, system design, information and monitoring, and accountability and transparency is limited.

The effect of community engagement on healthcare utilization and health insurance enrollment in Ghana: Results from a randomized experiment

Health insurance enrollment in many Sub-Saharan African countries is low, even with highly subsidized premiums and exemptions for vulnerable populations. One possible explanation is low service quality, which results in a low valuation of health insurance. Using a randomized control trial in 64 primary health care facilities in Ghana, this study assesses the impact of a community engagement intervention designed to improve the quality of healthcare and health insurance services on households living nearby the facilities. Although the intervention improved the medical-technical quality of health services, our results show that households' subjective perceptions of the quality of healthcare and insurance services did not increase. Nevertheless, the likelihood of illness and concomitant healthcare utilization reduced, and especially households who were not insured at baseline were more likely to enroll in health insurance. The results show that solely increasing the technical quality of care is not sufficient to increase households' subjective assessments of healthcare quality. Still, improving technical quality can directly contribute to health outcomes and further increase health insurance coverage, especially among the previously uninsured.

‘We are the bridge’: an implementation research study of SEWA Shakti Kendras to improve community engagement in publicly funded health insurance in Gujarat, India

Introduction

India’s efforts towards universal health coverage include a national health insurance scheme that aims to protect the most vulnerable from catastrophic health expenditure. However, emerging evidence on publicly funded health insurance, as well as experience from community-based schemes, indicates that women face specific barriers to access and utilisation. Community engagement interventions have been shown to improve equitable utilisation of public health services, but there is limited research specific to health insurance. We examined how existing community-based resource centres implemented by a women’s organisation could improve women’s access to, and utilisation of, health insurance.

Methods

We conducted an implementation research study in Gujarat, India to examine how SEWA Shakti Kendras, established by the Self-Employed Women’s Association, worked to improve community engagement in health insurance. SEWA organises women in the informal sector and provides social protection through health, insurance and childcare services. We examined administrative data, programme reports and conducted 30 in-depth qualitative interviews with users and staff. Data were analysed thematically to examine intervention content, context, and implementation processes and to identify enablers and barriers to improving women’s access to health insurance through SEWA’s community engagement approach.

Results

The centres worked through multiple channels—doorstep services, centre-based support and health system navigation—to strengthen women’s capability to access health insurance. Each centre’s approach varied by contextual factors, such as women’s digital literacy levels and rural–urban settings. Effective community engagement required local leadership, strong government partnerships and the flexibility to address a range of public services, with implementation by trusted local health workers.

Conclusion

SEWA Shakti Kendras demonstrate how a local, flexible and community-based model can serve as a bridge to improve utilisation of health insurance, by engaging women and their households through multiple channels. Scaling up this approach will require investing in partnerships with community-based organisations as part of strategies towards universal health coverage.

A summative content analysis of how programmes to improve the right to sexual and reproductive health address power

INTRODUCTION

Power shapes all aspects of global health. The concept of power is not only useful in understanding the current situation, but it is also regularly mobilised in programmatic efforts that seek to change power relations. This paper uses summative content analysis to describe how sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programmes in low-income and middle-income countries explicitly and implicitly aim to alter relations of power.

METHODS

Content analysis is a qualitative approach to analysing textual data; in our analysis, peer-reviewed articles that describe programmes aiming to alter power relations to improve SRH constituted the data. We searched three databases, ultimately including 108 articles. We extracted the articles into a spreadsheet that included basic details about the paper and the programme, including what level of the social ecological model programme activities addressed.

RESULTS

The programmes reviewed reflect a diversity of priorities and approaches to addressing power, though most papers were largely based in a biomedical framework. Most programmes intervened at multiple levels simultaneously; some of these were 'structural' programmes that explicitly aimed to shift power relations, others addressed multiple levels using a more typical programme theory that sought to change individual behaviours and proximate drivers. This prevailing focus on proximate behaviours is somewhat mismatched with the broader literature on the power-related drivers of SRH health inequities, which explores the role of embedded norms and structures.

CONCLUSION

This paper adds value by summarising what the academic public health community has chosen to test and research in terms of power relations and SRH, and by raising questions about how this corresponds to the significant task of effecting change in power relations to improve the right to SRH.

Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals' performance: A systematic review (2000-2020)

BACKGROUND

Public performance reporting (PPR) of physician and hospital data aims to improve health outcomes by promoting quality improvement and informing consumer choice. However, previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent effects of PPR, potentially due to the various PPR characteristics examined. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the impact and mechanisms (selection and change), by which PPR exerts its influence.

METHODS

Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved from five databases and eight reviews. Data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted. Studies were categorised into: user and provider responses to PPR and impact of PPR on quality of care.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were identified: 24 on user and provider responses to PPR, 14 on impact of PPR on quality of care, and seven on both. Most of the studies reported positive effects of PPR on the selection of providers by patients, purchasers and providers, quality improvement activities in primary care clinics and hospitals, clinical outcomes and patient experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide moderate level of evidence to support the role of PPR in stimulating quality improvement activities, informing consumer choice and improving clinical outcomes. There was some evidence to demonstrate a relationship between PPR and patient experience. The effects of PPR varied across clinical areas which may be related to the type of indicators, level of data reported and the mode of dissemination. It is important to ensure that the design and implementation of PPR considered the perspectives of different users and the health system in which PPR operates in. There is a need to account for factors such as the structural characteristics and culture of the hospitals that could influence the uptake of PPR.