Panda Bhuputra, Thakur Harshad P
Public Health Foundation of India, IIPH-Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India.
School of Health Systems Studies, TISS, Mumbai, India.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Oct 31;16(Suppl 6):561. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1784-9.
One of the principal goals of any health care system is to improve health through the provision of clinical and public health services. Decentralization as a reform measure aims to improve inputs, management processes and health outcomes, and has political, administrative and financial connotations. It is argued that the robustness of a health system in achieving desirable outcomes is contingent upon the width and depth of 'decision space' at the local level. Studies have used different approaches to examine one or more facets of decentralization and its effect on health system functioning; however, lack of consensus on an acceptable framework is a critical gap in determining its quantum and quality. Theorists have resorted to concepts of 'trust', 'convenience' and 'mutual benefits' to explain, define and measure components of governance in health. In the emerging 'continuum of health services' model, the challenge lies in identifying variables of performance (fiscal allocation, autonomy at local level, perception of key stakeholders, service delivery outputs, etc.) through the prism of decentralization in the first place, and in establishing directed relationships among them.
This focused review paper conducted extensive web-based literature search, using PubMed and Google Scholar search engines. After screening of key words and study objectives, we retrieved 180 articles for next round of screening. One hundred and four full articles (three working papers and 101 published papers) were reviewed in totality. We attempted to summarize existing literature on decentralization and health systems performance, explain key concepts and essential variables, and develop a framework for further scientific scrutiny. Themes are presented in three separate segments of dimensions, difficulties and derivatives.
Evaluation of local decision making and its effect on health system performance has been studied in a compartmentalized manner. There is sparse evidence about innovations attributable to decentralization. We observed that in India, there is very scant evaluative study on the subject. We didn't come across a single study examining the perception and experiences of local decision makers about the opportunities and challenges they faced. The existing body of evidences may be inadequate to feed into sound policy making. The principles of management hinge on measurement of inputs, processes and outputs. In the conceptual framework we propose three levels of functions (health systems functions, management functions and measurement functions) being intricately related to inputs, processes and outputs. Each level of function encompasses essential elements derived from the synthesis of information gathered through literature review and non-participant observation. We observed that it is difficult to quantify characteristics of governance at institutional, system and individual levels except through proxy means.
There is an urgent need to sensitize governments and academia about how best more objective evaluation of 'shared governance' can be undertaken to benefit policy making. The future direction of enquiry should focus on context-specific evidence of its effect on the entire spectrum of health system, with special emphasis on efficiency, community participation, human resource management and quality of services.
任何医疗保健系统的主要目标之一都是通过提供临床和公共卫生服务来改善健康状况。分权作为一项改革措施,旨在改善投入、管理流程和健康成果,具有政治、行政和财政内涵。有人认为,卫生系统在实现理想成果方面的稳健性取决于地方层面“决策空间”的广度和深度。研究采用了不同方法来考察分权的一个或多个方面及其对卫生系统运作的影响;然而,在确定其数量和质量方面,缺乏一个可接受框架的共识是一个关键差距。理论家们诉诸“信任”“便利”和“互利”等概念来解释、界定和衡量卫生治理的组成部分。在新兴的“卫生服务连续体”模式中,挑战首先在于通过分权的视角识别绩效变量(财政分配、地方层面的自主权、关键利益相关者的认知、服务提供产出等),并在它们之间建立定向关系。
本重点综述论文通过基于网络的广泛文献检索,使用了PubMed和谷歌学术搜索引擎。在筛选关键词和研究目标后,我们检索了180篇文章进行下一轮筛选。总共对104篇全文(3篇工作论文和101篇已发表论文)进行了综述。我们试图总结关于分权与卫生系统绩效的现有文献,解释关键概念和基本变量,并构建一个框架以供进一步的科学审视。主题在维度、困难和衍生内容三个单独部分呈现。
对地方决策及其对卫生系统绩效的影响的评估一直是分部门进行研究的。关于分权带来创新的证据很少。我们观察到,在印度,关于这个主题的评估性研究非常少。我们没有找到一项研究来考察地方决策者对他们所面临的机遇和挑战的认知与经验。现有的证据可能不足以用于制定合理的政策。管理原则取决于对投入、流程和产出的衡量。在概念框架中,我们提出三个功能层面(卫生系统功能、管理功能和衡量功能)与投入、流程和产出密切相关。每个功能层面都包含通过文献综述和非参与观察收集的信息综合得出的基本要素。我们观察到,除了通过代理手段外,很难量化机构、系统和个人层面的治理特征。
迫切需要让政府和学术界认识到如何才能更好地对“共享治理”进行更客观的评估以造福政策制定。未来的研究方向应聚焦于其对整个卫生系统影响的具体背景证据,特别强调效率、社区参与、人力资源管理和服务质量。