Search

Responsive primary health-care facilities are the foundation of resilient health systems, yet little is known about facility-level processes that contribute to the continuity of essential services during a crisis. This paper describes the aspects of primary health-care facility resilience to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in eight countries. Rapid-cycle phone surveys were conducted with health facility managers in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guatemala, Guinea, Liberia, Malawi and Nigeria between August 2020 and December 2021. Responses were mapped to a validated health facility resilience framework and coded as binary variables for whether a facility demonstrated capacity in eight areas: removing barriers to accessing services, infection control, workforce, surge capacity, financing, critical infrastructure, risk communications, and medical supplies and equipment. These self-reported capacities were summarized nationally and validated with the ministries of health. The analysis of service volume data determined the outcome: maintenance of essential health services. Of primary health-care facilities, 1,453 were surveyed. Facilities maintained between 84% and 97% of the expected outpatient services, except for Bangladesh, where 69% of the expected outpatient consultations were conducted between March 2020 and December 2021. For Burkina Faso, Chad, Guatemala, Guinea and Nigeria, critical infrastructure was the largest constraint in resilience capabilities (47%, 14%, 51%, 9% and 29% of facilities demonstrated capacity, respectively). Medical supplies and equipment were the largest constraints for Liberia and Malawi (15% and 48% of facilities demonstrating capacity, respectively). In Bangladesh, the largest constraint was workforce and staffing, where 44% of facilities experienced moderate to severe challenges with human resources during the pandemic. The largest constraints in facility resilience during COVID-19 were related to health systems building blocks. These challenges likely existed before the pandemic, suggesting the need for strategic investments and reforms in core capacities of comprehensive primary health-care systems to improve resilience to future shocks., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Performance-based financing (PBF) is being implemented across low- and middle-income countries to improve the availability and quality of health services, including medicines. Although a few studies have examined the effects of PBF on the availability of essential medicines (EMs) in low- and middle-income countries, there is limited knowledge of the mechanisms underlying these effects. Our research aimed to explore how PBF in Cameroon influenced the availability of EMs, and to understand the pathways leading to the experiential dimension related with the observed changes. The design was an exploratory qualitative study. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, using semi-structured questionnaires. Key informants were selected using purposive sampling. The respondents (n = 55) included health services managers, healthcare providers, health authorities, regional drugs store managers and community members. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative data analysis software. Thematic analysis was performed. Our findings suggest that the PBF programme improved the perceived availability of EMs in three regions in Cameroon. The change in availability of EMs experienced by stakeholders resulted from several pathways, including the greater autonomy of facilities, the enforced regulation from the district medical team, the greater accountability of the pharmacy attendant and supply system liberalization. However, a sequence of challenges, including delays in PBF payments, limited autonomy, lack of leadership and contextual factors such as remoteness or difficulty in access, was perceived to hinder the capacity to yield optimal changes, resulting in heterogeneity in performance between health facilities. The participants raised concerns regarding the quality control of drugs, the inequalities between facilities and the fragmentation of the drug management system. The study highlights that some specific dimensions of PBF, such as pharmacy autonomy and the liberalization of drugs supply systems, need to be supported by equity interventions, reinforced regulation and measures to ensure the quality of drugs at all levels., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

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.