Search

Background: Despite governments striving for responsive health systems and the implementation of mechanisms to foster better citizen feedback and strengthen accountability and stewardship, these mechanisms do not always function in effective, equitable, or efficient ways. There is also limited evidence that maps the diverse array of responsiveness mechanisms coherently across a particular health system, especially in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) contexts. Methods: This scoping review presents a cross-sectional 'map' of types of health system responsiveness mechanisms; the regulatory environment; and evidence available about these; and assesses what is known about their functionality in a particular local South African health system; the Western Cape (WC) province. Multiple forms of indexed and grey literature were synthesized to provide a contextualized understanding of current 'formal' responsiveness mechanisms mandated in national and provincial policies and guidelines (n = 379). Various forms of secondary analysis were applied across quantitative and qualitative data, including thematic and time-series analyses. An expert checking process was conducted, with three local field experts, as a final step to check the veracity of the analytics and conclusions made. Results: National, provincial and district policies make provision for health system responsiveness, including varied mechanisms intended to foster public feedback. However, while some are shown to be functioning and effective, there are major barriers faced by all, such as resource and capacity constraints, and a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities. Most mechanisms exist in isolation, failing to feed into an overarching strategy for improved responsiveness. Conclusion: The lack of synergy between mechanisms or analysis of varied forms of feedback is a missed opportunity. Decision-makers are unable to see trends or gaps in the flow of feedback, check whether all voices are heard or fully understand whether/how systemic response occurs. Urgent health system work lies in the research of macro 'whole' systems responsiveness (levels, development, trends). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community health systems (CHSs) have historically been approached from multiple perspectives, with different purposes and methodological and disciplinary orientations. The terrain is, on the one hand, vast and diverse. On the other hand, under the banner of universal health coverage (UHC) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a streamlined version of 'community health' is increasingly being consolidated in global health and donor communities. With the view to informing debate and practice, this paper seeks to synthesise approaches to the CHS into a set of 'lenses,' drawing on the collective and multi-disciplinary knowledge (both formal and experiential) of the authors, a collaborative network of 23 researchers from seven institutions across six countries (spanning low, middle and high income). With a common view of the CHS as a complex adaptive system, we propose four key lenses, referred to as programmatic, relational, collective action and critical lenses. The lenses represent different positionalities in community health, encompassing macro-level policy-maker, front-line and community vantage points, and purposes ranging from social justice to instrumental goals. We define and describe the main elements of each lens and their implications for thinking about policy, practice and research. Distilling a set of key lenses offers a way to make sense of a complex terrain, but also counters what may emerge as a dominant, single narrative on the CHS in global health. By making explicit and bringing together different lenses on the CHS, the limits and possibilities of each may be better appreciated, while promoting integrative, systems thinking in policy, practice and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]