Western Pacific Regional Office, World Health Organization, Manila, Philippines.
BMC Public Health. 2012 Oct 16;12:877. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-877.
Segmented service delivery with consequent inefficiencies in health systems was one of the main concerns raised during scaling up of disease-specific programs in the last two decades. The organized response to NCD is in infancy in most LMICs with little evidence on how the response is evolving in terms of institutional arrangements and policy development processes.
Drawing on qualitative review of policy and program documents from five LMICs and data from global key-informant surveys conducted in 2004 and 2010, we examine current status of governance of response to NCDs at national level along three dimensions- institutional arrangements for stewardship and program management and implementation; policies/plans; and multisectoral coordination and partnerships.
Several positive trends were noted in the organization and governance of response to NCDs: shift from specific NCD-based programs to integrated NCD programs, increasing inclusion of NCDs in sector-wide health plans, and establishment of high-level multisectoral coordination mechanisms.Several areas of concern were identified. The evolving NCD-specific institutional structures are being treated as 'program management and implementation' entities rather than as lead 'technical advisory' bodies, with unclear division of roles and responsibilities between NCD-specific and sector-wide structures. NCD-specific and sector-wide plans are poorly aligned and lack prioritization, costing, and appropriate targets. Finally, the effectiveness of existing multisectoral coordination mechanisms remains questionable.
The 'technical functions' and 'implementation and management functions' should be clearly separated between NCD-specific units and sector-wide institutional structures to avoid duplicative segmented service delivery systems. Institutional capacity building efforts for NCDs should target both NCD-specific units (for building technical and analytical capacity) and sector-wide organizational units (for building program management and implementation capacity) in MOH.The sector-wide health plans should reflect NCDs in proportion to their public health importance. NCD specific plans should be developed in close consultation with sector-wide health- and non-health stakeholders. These plans should expand on the directions provided by sector-wide health plans specifying strategically prioritized, fully costed activities, and realistic quantifiable targets for NCD control linked with sector-wide expenditure framework. Multisectoral coordination mechanisms need to be strengthened with optimal decision-making powers and resource commitment and monitoring of their outputs.
在过去二十年中,随着针对特定疾病的项目的扩大,分段式服务提供导致卫生系统效率低下,这是主要关注的问题之一。在大多数中低收入国家,对非传染性疾病的有组织应对还处于起步阶段,几乎没有证据表明在机构安排和政策制定过程方面,应对工作的发展情况如何。
我们借鉴了来自五个中低收入国家的政策和项目文件的定性审查以及 2004 年和 2010 年进行的全球主要知情者调查的数据,从三个方面审查了国家一级针对非传染性疾病的应对工作的治理现状:管理和实施的体制安排;政策/计划;以及多部门协调与伙伴关系。
在非传染性疾病应对工作的组织和治理方面,出现了一些积极的趋势:从基于特定非传染性疾病的方案向综合非传染性疾病方案转变,将非传染性疾病更多地纳入全部门卫生计划,以及建立高级别多部门协调机制。但是,也确定了一些令人关切的领域。不断发展的非传染性疾病专门机构结构被视为“方案管理和实施”实体,而不是主要的“技术咨询”机构,非传染性疾病专门结构和全部门结构之间的作用和责任划分不明确。非传染性疾病专门计划和全部门计划之间缺乏一致性,也没有优先排序、成本核算和适当目标。最后,现有多部门协调机制的有效性仍值得怀疑。
非传染性疾病专门单位和全部门体制结构之间应明确分开“技术职能”和“实施和管理职能”,以避免重复的分段式服务提供系统。针对非传染性疾病的体制能力建设工作应针对非传染性疾病专门单位(用于建设技术和分析能力)和全部门体制单位(用于建设方案管理和实施能力)。全部门卫生计划应按非传染性疾病对公共卫生的重要性成比例地反映非传染性疾病。非传染性疾病专门计划的制定应与全部门卫生和非卫生利益攸关方密切协商进行。这些计划应根据全部门卫生计划提供的方向展开,具体说明具有战略优先次序、全面成本核算的活动以及与全部门支出框架挂钩的现实可量化的非传染性疾病控制目标。多部门协调机制需要通过优化决策权力和资源承诺得到加强,并对其产出进行监测。