Ifakara Health Institute, Plot 463, Kiko Avenue Mikocheni, P.O. Box 78 373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Int J Equity Health. 2017 Jul 11;16(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0620-0.
There is limited evidence on how health care inputs are distributed from the sub-national level down to health facilities and their potential influence on promoting health equity. To address this gap, this paper assesses equity in the distribution of health care inputs across public primary health facilities at the district level in Tanzania.
This is a quantitative assessment of equity in the distribution of health care inputs (staff, drugs, medical supplies and equipment) from district to facility level. The study was carried out in three districts (Kinondoni, Singida Rural and Manyoni district) in Tanzania. These districts were selected because they were implementing primary care reforms. We administered 729 exit surveys with patients seeking out-patient care; and health facility surveys at 69 facilities in early 2014. A total of seventeen indices of input availability were constructed with the collected data. The distribution of inputs was considered in relation to (i) the wealth of patients accessing the facilities, which was taken as a proxy for the wealth of the population in the catchment area; and (ii) facility distance from the district headquarters. We assessed equity in the distribution of inputs through the use of equity ratios, concentration indices and curves.
We found a significant pro-rich distribution of clinical staff and nurses per 1000 population. Facilities with the poorest patients (most remote facilities) have fewer staff per 1000 population than those with the least poor patients (least remote facilities): 0.6 staff per 1000 among the poorest, compared to 0.9 among the least poor; 0.7 staff per 1000 among the most remote facilities compared to 0.9 among the least remote. The negative concentration index for support staff suggests a pro-poor distribution of this cadre but the 45 degree dominated the concentration curve. The distribution of vaccines, antibiotics, anti-diarrhoeal, anti-malarials and medical supplies was approximately proportional (non dominance), whereas the distribution of oxytocics, anti-retroviral therapy (ART) and anti-hypertensive drugs was pro-rich, with the 45 degree line dominating the concentration curve for ART.
This study has shown there are inequities in the distribution of health care inputs across public primary care facilities. This highlights the need to ensure a better coordinated and equitable distribution of inputs through regular monitoring of the availability of health care inputs and strengthening of reporting systems.
关于卫生保健投入如何从国家以下各级分配到卫生机构,以及这种分配对促进卫生公平可能产生的影响,现有证据有限。为解决这一差距,本文评估了坦桑尼亚地区一级公共初级保健机构中卫生保健投入分配的公平性。
这是对从地区到机构一级的卫生保健投入(人员、药品、医疗用品和设备)分配公平性的定量评估。该研究在坦桑尼亚三个地区(金多尼、欣延达农村和曼亚尼)进行。选择这些地区是因为它们正在实施初级保健改革。我们在 2014 年初用 729 份门诊患者的门诊调查和 69 个设施的设施调查来管理。根据收集到的数据,构建了 17 项投入可用性指标。投入的分布与(i)利用设施的患者的财富有关,这被视为集水区人口财富的代表;(ii)设施与地区总部的距离有关。我们通过使用公平比率、集中指数和曲线来评估投入分配的公平性。
我们发现,每 1000 人口的临床工作人员和护士的分布呈明显的亲富型。为最贫困的患者(最偏远的设施)提供服务的设施每 1000 人拥有的工作人员比为最不贫困的患者(最不偏远的设施)提供服务的设施少:最贫困的设施每 1000 人有 0.6 名工作人员,而最不贫困的设施每 1000 人有 0.9 名工作人员;最偏远的设施每 1000 人有 0.7 名工作人员,而最不偏远的设施每 1000 人有 0.9 名工作人员。支持人员的负集中指数表明,这一干部的分配有利于穷人,但 45 度线主导了集中曲线。疫苗、抗生素、抗腹泻药、抗疟药和医疗用品的分布大致成比例(不占主导地位),而催产素、抗逆转录病毒疗法(ART)和抗高血压药物的分布则有利于富人,45 度线主导了 ART 的集中曲线。
本研究表明,公共初级保健机构之间的卫生保健投入分配存在不公平现象。这凸显了需要通过定期监测卫生保健投入的供应情况并加强报告系统,确保投入更协调、更公平地分配。