School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
National Primary Health Care Development Agency, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria.
Health Policy Plan. 2019 Oct 1;34(8):605-617. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz055.
One constant refrain in evaluations and reviews of decentralization is that the results are mixed. But given that decentralization is a complex intervention or phenomenon, what is more important is to generate evidence to inform implementation strategies. We therefore synthesized evidence from the literature to understand why, how and under what circumstances decentralization influences health system equity, efficiency and resilience. In doing this, we adopted the realist approach to evidence synthesis and included quantitative and qualitative studies in high-, low- and middle-income countries that assessed the the impact of decentralization on health systems. We searched the Medline and Embase databases via Ovid, and the Cochrane library of systematic reviews and included 51 studies with data from 25 countries. We identified three mechanisms through which decentralization impacts on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: 'Voting with feet' (reflecting how decentralization either exacerbates or assuages the existing patterns of inequities in the distribution of people, resources and outcomes in a jurisdiction); 'Close to ground' (reflecting how bringing governance closer to the people allows for use of local initiative, information, feedback, input and control); and 'Watching the watchers' (reflecting mutual accountability and support relations between multiple centres of governance which are multiplied by decentralization, involving governments at different levels and also community health committees and health boards). We also identified institutional, socio-economic and geographic contextual factors that influence each of these mechanisms. By moving beyond findings that the effects of decentralization on health systems and outcomes are mixed, this review presents mechanisms and contextual factors to which policymakers and implementers need to pay attention in their efforts to maximize the positive and minimize the negative impact of decentralized governance.
在对权力下放的评价和审查中,一个不变的主题是结果喜忧参半。但是,鉴于权力下放是一项复杂的干预措施或现象,更重要的是要生成证据来为实施策略提供信息。因此,我们综合了文献中的证据,以了解权力下放如何以及在什么情况下影响卫生系统的公平性、效率和弹性。在这样做的过程中,我们采用了证据综合的现实主义方法,并纳入了来自高、中、低收入国家的定量和定性研究,这些研究评估了权力下放对卫生系统的影响。我们通过 Ovid 检索了 Medline 和 Embase 数据库,并纳入了 Cochrane 系统评价图书馆中来自 25 个国家的 51 项研究。我们确定了权力下放对卫生系统公平性、效率和弹性产生影响的三种机制:“用脚投票”(反映权力下放是加剧还是缓解一个司法管辖区内人员、资源和结果分配方面现有不公平模式的方式);“贴近地面”(反映将治理贴近人民如何使当地的主动性、信息、反馈、投入和控制得以利用);以及“监督监督者”(反映由于权力下放,多个治理中心之间的相互问责和支持关系倍增,涉及不同级别的政府以及社区卫生委员会和卫生委员会)。我们还确定了影响这些机制的体制、社会经济和地理背景因素。通过超越权力下放对卫生系统和结果的影响好坏参半的发现,本审查提出了机制和背景因素,政策制定者和实施者需要在努力最大化分散治理的积极影响和最小化其负面影响时予以关注。