Consensus and contention in the priority setting process: examining the health sector in Uganda

How actors, processes, context and evidence influenced the development of Malawi's Health Sector Strategic Plan II

Health sector strategic plans are health policies outlining health service delivery in low- and middle- income countries, guiding health sectors to meet health needs while maximizing resources. However, little research has explored the formulation of these plans. This study utilized qualitative methods to explore the formulation of Malawi's Health Sector Strategic Plan II, including processes utilized, actors involved, important contextual factors and the use of evidence-based decision-making. Thirteen semi-structured key informant interviews with health policy actors were conducted to explore perceptions and experiences of formulating the policy. Data analysis used an inductive-deductive approach and interpretation of the data was guided by an adapted version of the Walt and Gilson Health Policy Triangle. Our results indicate that HSSP II formulation was complex and inclusive but that the Ministry of Health may have given up ownership of the formulation process to development partners to ensure their continued involvement. Disagreements between actors centered around inclusion of critical services in the Essential Health Package and selection of performance-based financing as purchasing strategy. Resource constraints and the Cashgate Scandal are critical contextual elements influencing the formulation and content of the policy. Evidence-based decision-making contributed to the plan's development despite respondents' divergent opinions regarding evidence availability, quality and the weight that evidence carried. The study raises questions regarding the roles of policy actors during health policy formulation, the inclusivity of health policy processes and their potential influence on government ownership of health policy, as well as the use of evidence in developing health sector strategic plans.

Who is in and who is out? A qualitative analysis of stakeholder participation in priority setting for health in three districts in Uganda

Stakeholder participation is relevant in strengthening priority setting processes for health worldwide, since it allows for inclusion of alternative perspectives and values that can enhance the fairness, legitimacy and acceptability of decisions. Low-income countries operating within decentralized systems recognize the role played by sub-national administrative levels (such as districts) in healthcare priority setting. In Uganda, decentralization is a vehicle for facilitating stakeholder participation. Our objective was to examine district-level decision-makers' perspectives on the participation of different stakeholders, including challenges related to their participation. We further sought to understand the leverages that allow these stakeholders to influence priority setting processes. We used an interpretive description methodology involving qualitative interviews. A total of 27 district-level decision-makers from three districts in Uganda were interviewed. Respondents identified the following stakeholder groups: politicians, technical experts, donors, non-governmental organizations (NGO)/civil society organizations (CSO), cultural and traditional leaders, and the public. Politicians, technical experts and donors are the principal contributors to district-level priority setting and the public is largely excluded. The main leverages for politicians were control over the district budget and support of their electorate. Expertise was a cross-cutting leverage for technical experts, donors and NGO/CSOs, while financial and technical resources were leverages for donors and NGO/CSOs. Cultural and traditional leaders' leverages were cultural knowledge and influence over their followers. The public's leverage was indirect and exerted through electoral power. Respondents made no mention of participation for vulnerable groups. The public, particularly vulnerable groups, are left out of the priority setting process for health at the district. Conflicting priorities, interests and values are the main challenges facing stakeholders engaged in district-level priority setting. Our findings have important implications for understanding how different stakeholder groups shape the prioritization process and whether representation can be an effective mechanism for participation in health-system priority setting.

It's politics, stupid! A political analysis of the HIV/AIDS Trust Fund in Uganda

The role of trust funds in the practice of and the policy discourse on the sustainable financing for health and HIV is growing. However, there is a paucity of political analyses on implementing trust fund arrangements. Drawing on a novel meta-framework - connecting multiple streams and advocacy coalition frameworks to policy cycle models of analysis - to politically analyse HIV financing policy design, adoption and implementation as well as insights from public finance literature, this article critically analyses the politics of the AIDS Trust Fund (ATF) in Uganda. We find that politics was the most fundamental driver for the establishment of the ATF. Whereas HIV financing is inherently both technical and political, enacting the ATF was largely a geopolitical positioning policy instrument that entailed navigating political economy challenges in managing multiple stakeholder groups' politics. With the mandated tax revenues earmarked to capitalise the ATF covering only 0.5% of the annual resource needs, we find a very insignificant potential to contribute to financial sustainability of the national HIV response per se. As good ideas and evidence alone often do not necessarily produce desired results, we conclude that systematic and continuous political analysis can bring meaningful insights to our understanding of political economy dimensions of the ATF as an innovative financing policy instrument, thereby helping drive technically sound health financing policy proposals into practice more effectively. For Uganda, while proponents have invested a considerable amount of hope in the ATF as a source of sustainable domestic funding for the HIV response, substantial work remains to be done to address a number of questions that continue to beguile the current ATF architecture. Regarding global health financing policy, the findings suggest the need to pay attention to the position, power and interests of stakeholders as a powerful lever in health financing policy reforms.

Applying priority-setting frameworks: A review of public and vulnerable populations' participation in health-system priority setting

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature that describes, applies, and evaluates applications of health-system priority-setting frameworks in different contexts. However, little explicit focus has been given to examining operationalization of the stakeholder participation component of these frameworks. The literature identifies the public as a stakeholder group and recommends their participation when applying the frameworks.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to search the PubMed, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, Medline, and PsycINFO databases for cases where priority-setting frameworks were applied (2000-2017). We aimed to synthesize current literature to examine the degree to which the public and vulnerable populations have been engaged through applications of these frameworks FINDINGS: The following stakeholders commonly participated: managers, administrators/coordinators, clinicians/physicians, non-physician health care providers, health economists, academics/researchers, experts, decision-makers, and policy-makers. Few papers reported on public participation, and even fewer identified vulnerable groups that participate. Stakeholders were most commonly reported to participate in identifying areas for prioritization.

CONCLUSIONS

While the frameworks were developed with stakeholder participation in mind, in practice not all stakeholders are participating in priority-setting processes as envisioned by the frameworks. The public and vulnerable groups do not consistently participate, challenging the utility of the participation component of frameworks in guiding stakeholder participation in health-system priority setting. Frameworks can be more explicit about which stakeholders should participate and detailing how their participation should be operationalized.

Ethno-pharmacological survey of herbal remedies used in the treatment of paediatric diseases in Buhunga parish, Rukungiri District, Uganda

BACKGROUND

Plants have been used as a primary source of medicine since ancient times and about 80% of the world's population use herbal medicine to treat different ailments. Plant use knowledge differs in space and time and thus requires documentation to avoid its loss from one generation to another.

METHODS

In order to accomplish the survey, semi-structured questionnaires were used. The data collected included names of plant species, parts used, ailments treated, growth habit, methods of preparation and mode of administration of the herbal remedies. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data in form of tables and a graph.

RESULTS

Results showed that 50 plant species belonging to 26 families were utilized in the treatment of paediatric diseases of which Asteraceae and Lamiaceae were the most common. Leaves (80%) were the most commonly used and decoctions were the main method of preparation. Twenty nine health conditions were treated out of which digestive disorders, malaria and respiratory tract infections were predominant. Herbs and shrubs were equally dominant.

CONCLUSION

Herbal remedies are an important source of treatment for paediatric diseases in Buhunga Parish. However, there is need for collaboration between herbal medicine users and scientific institutions to help in the discovery of new drugs based on indigenous knowledge. Scientists ought to explore suitable methods of preparation and dosage formulations in order to achieve the best benefits from herbal remedies.

Criteria Used for Priority-Setting for Public Health Resource Allocation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify criteria being used for priority setting for resource allocation decisions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Furthermore, the included studies were analyzed from a policy perspective to understand priority setting processes in these countries.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in PubMed, Embase, Econlit, and Cochrane databases, supplemented with pre-identified Web sites and bibliographic searches of relevant papers. Quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken. The review protocol is registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO CRD42017068371.

RESULTS

Of 16,412 records screened by title and abstract, 112 papers were identified for full text screening and 44 studies were included in the final analysis. At an overall level, cost-effectiveness 52 percent (n = 22) and health benefits 45 percent (n = 19) were the most cited criteria used for priority setting for public health resource allocation. Inter-region (LMICs) and between various approaches (like health technology assessment, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), accountability for reasonableness (AFR) variations among criteria were also noted. Our review found that MCDA approach was more frequently used in upper middle-income countries and AFR in lower-income countries for priority setting in health. Policy makers were the most frequently consulted stakeholders in all regions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Priority-setting criteria for health resource allocation decisions in LMICs largely comprised of cost-effectiveness and health benefits criteria at overall level. Other criteria like legal and regulatory framework conducive for implementation, fairness/ethics, and political considerations were infrequently reported and should be considered.

Community participation to improve health services for children: a methodology for a community dialogue intervention in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Like other developing countries, Uganda still struggles to meaningfully reduce child mortality. A strategy of giving information to communities to spark interest in improving child survival through inducing responsibility and social sanctioning in the health workforce was postulated. By focusing on diarrhea, pneumonia and malaria, a Community and District Empowerment for Scale up (CODES) undertaking used "community dialogues" to arm communities with health system performance information. This empowered them to monitor health service provision and demand for quality child-health services.

METHODS

We describe a process of community dialoguing through use of citizen report cards, short-text-messages, media and post-dialogue monitoring. Each community dialogue assembled 70-100 members including health workers and community leaders. After each community dialogue, participants implemented activities outlined in generated community contracts. Radio messages promoted demand for child-health services and elicited support to implement accepted activities.

CONCLUSION

The perception that community dialoging is "a lot of talk" that never advances meaningful action was debunked since participant-initiated actions were conceived and implemented. Potential for use of electronic communication in real-time feedback and stimulating discussion proved viable. Post-dialogue monitoring captured in community contracts facilitated process evaluation and added plausibility for observed effects. Capacitated organizations during post-dialogue monitoring guaranteed sustainability.

The unfunded priorities: an evaluation of priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda

BACKGROUND

The double burden of infectious diseases coupled with noncommunicable diseases poses unique challenges for priority setting and for achieving equitable action to address the major causes of disease burden in health systems already impacted by limited resources. Noncommunicable disease control is an important global health and development priority. However, there are challenges for translating this global priority into local priorities and action. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of national, sub-national and global factors on priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda and examine the extent to which priority setting was successful.

METHODS

A mixed methods design that used the Kapiriri & Martin framework for evaluating priority setting in low income countries. The evaluation period was 2005-2015. Data collection included a document review (policy documents (n = 19); meeting minutes (n = 28)), media analysis (n = 114) and stakeholder interviews (n = 9). Data were analysed according to the Kapiriri & Martin (2010) framework.

RESULTS

Priority setting for noncommunicable diseases was not entirely fair nor successful. While there were explicit processes that incorporated relevant criteria, evidence and wide stakeholder involvement, these criteria were not used systematically or consistently in the contemplation of noncommunicable diseases. There were insufficient resources for noncommunicable diseases, despite being a priority area. There were weaknesses in the priority setting institutions, and insufficient mechanisms to ensure accountability for decision-making. Priority setting was influenced by the priorities of major stakeholders (i.e. development assistance partners) which were not always aligned with national priorities. There were major delays in the implementation of noncommunicable disease-related priorities and in many cases, a failure to implement.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation revealed the challenges that low income countries are grappling with in prioritizing noncommunicable diseases in the context of a double disease burden with limited resources. Strengthening local capacity for priority setting would help to support the development of sustainable and implementable noncommunicable disease-related priorities. Global support (i.e. aid) to low income countries for noncommunicable diseases must also catch up to align with NCDs as a global health priority.

Prioritizing and Funding the Uganda Nutrition Action Plan

BACKGROUND

In 2010, Uganda began developing its first multisectoral nutrition plan, the Uganda Nutrition Action Plan (UNAP), to reduce malnutrition. While the UNAP signals high-level commitment to addressing nutrition, knowledge gaps remain about how to successfully implement such a plan.

OBJECTIVE

We tracked the UNAP's influence on the process of priority setting and funding for nutrition from 2013 to 2015.

METHODS

This study used a longitudinal mixed methods design to track qualitative and budgetary changes related to UNAP processes nationally as well as in 2 study districts. Qualitative changes were assessed through interviews, news content, and meeting notes. Changes in allocations and expenditures were calculated based on budget documents, work plans, and validation interviews.

RESULTS

Important enabling factors named by stakeholders included identity, human resources, sustainable structures, coordination, advocacy, and adaptation of the UNAP to local needs. Evidence suggests that the UNAP facilitated improvements in the last 3 factors. We found no systematic increases in planned nutrition activities, nor did we find increases in allocations or expenditures for nutrition between fiscal years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. Expenditure data were not always available for all funding mechanisms. In the 2 study districts, there was little flexibility within financing structures to allow for additional nutrition activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest the UNAP has played an important role in strengthening the enabling environment for nutrition action. The next UNAP will need to translate these improvements into a greater number of nutrition activities and higher levels of funding at the national and subnational levels.

Combining Theory-Driven Evaluation and Causal Loop Diagramming for Opening the 'Black Box' of an Intervention in the Health Sector: A Case of Performance-Based Financing in Western Uganda

Increased attention on "complexity" in health systems evaluation has resulted in many different methodological responses. Theory-driven evaluations and systems thinking are two such responses that aim for better understanding of the mechanisms underlying given outcomes. Here, we studied the implementation of a performance-based financing intervention by the Belgian Technical Cooperation in Western Uganda to illustrate a methodological strategy of combining these two approaches. We utilized a systems dynamics tool called causal loop diagramming (CLD) to generate hypotheses feeding into a theory-driven evaluation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 health workers from two districts (Kasese and Kyenjojo) and with 16 key informants. After CLD, we identified three relevant hypotheses: "success to the successful", "growth and underinvestment", and "supervision conundrum". The first hypothesis leads to increasing improvements in performance, as better performance leads to more incentives, which in turn leads to better performance. The latter two hypotheses point to potential bottlenecks. Thus, the proposed methodological strategy was a useful tool for identifying hypotheses that can inform a theory-driven evaluation. The hypotheses are represented in a comprehensible way while highlighting the underlying assumptions, and are more easily falsifiable than hypotheses identified without using CLD.

Effectiveness of Multiple-Strategy Community Intervention in Reducing Geographical, Socioeconomic and Gender Based Inequalities in Maternal and Child Health Outcomes in Haryana, India

OBJECTIVE

The implemented multiple-strategy community intervention National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) between 2005 and 2012 aimed to reduce maternal and child health (MCH) inequalities across geographical, socioeconomic and gender categories in India. The objective of this study is to quantify the extent of reduction in these inequalities pre- and post-NRHM in Haryana, North India.

METHODS

Data of district-level household surveys (DLHS) held before (2002-04), during (2007-08), and after (2012-13) the implementation of NRHM has been used. Geographical, socioeconomic and gender inequalities in maternal and child health were assessed by estimating the absolute differences in MCH indicators between urban and rural areas, between the most advantaged and least advantaged socioeconomic groups and between male and female children. Logistic regression analyses were done to observe significant differences in these inequalities between 2005 and 2012.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements in all MCH indicators (p<0.05). The geographical and socioeconomic differences between urban and rural areas, and between rich and poor were significantly (p<0.05) reduced for pregnant women who had an institutional delivery (geographical difference declining from 22% to 7.6%; socioeconomic from 48.2% to 13%), post-natal care within 2 weeks of delivery (2.8% to 1.5%; 30.3% to 7%); and for children with full vaccination (10% to 3.5%, 48.3% to 14%) and who received oral rehydration solution (ORS) for diarrhea (11% to -2.2%; 41% to 5%). Inequalities between male and female children were significantly (p<0.05) reversed for full immunization (5.7% to -0.6%) and BCG immunization (1.9 to -0.9 points), and a significant (p<0.05) decrease was observed for oral polio vaccine (4.0% to 0%) and measles vaccine (4.2% to 0.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The implemented multiple-strategy community intervention National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) between 2005 and 2012 might have resulted in significant reductions in geographical, socioeconomic and gender inequalities in MCH in Haryana, as causal relationships cannot be established with descriptive research.

Power and Agenda-Setting in Tanzanian Health Policy: An Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Global health policy is created largely through a collaborative process between development agencies and aid-recipient governments, yet it remains unclear whether governments retain ownership over the creation of policy in their own countries. An assessment of the power structure in this relationship and its influence over agenda-setting is thus the first step towards understanding where progress is still needed in policy-making for development.

METHODS

This study employed qualitative policy analysis methodology to examine how health-related policy agendas are adopted in low-income countries, using Tanzania as a case study. Semi-structured, in-depth, key informant interviews with 11 policy-makers were conducted on perspectives of the agenda-setting process and its actors. Kingdon's stream theory was chosen as the lens through which to interpret the data analysis.

RESULTS

This study demonstrates that while stakeholders each have ways of influencing the process, the power to do so can be assessed based on three major factors: financial incentives, technical expertise, and influential position. Since donors often have two or all of these elements simultaneously a natural power imbalance ensues, whereby donor interests tend to prevail over recipient government limitations in prioritization of agendas. One way to mediate these imbalances seems to be the initiation of meaningful policy dialogue.

CONCLUSION

In Tanzania, the agenda-setting process operates within a complex network of factors that interact until a "policy window" opens and a decision is made. Power in this process often lies not with the Tanzanian government but with the donors, and the contrast between latent presence and deliberate use of this power seems to be based on the donor ideology behind giving aid (defined here by funding modality). Donors who used pooled funding (PF) modalities were less likely to exploit their inherent power, whereas those who preferred to maintain maximum control over the aid they provided (ie, non-pooled funders) more readily wielded their intrinsic power to push their own priorities.