Division of Health Policy and Systems, School of Public Health and Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Jan 1;11(1):67-79. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.85.
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.
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.
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.
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).
尽管各国政府努力打造响应迅速的卫生系统,并实施相关机制以促进公民更好地反馈意见、加强问责制和施政,但这些机制并非总能以有效、公平或高效的方式运作。此外,鲜有证据能够全面梳理特定卫生系统中多样化的响应机制,特别是在中低收入国家(LMIC)背景下。
本研究通过回顾性分析,绘制了一幅反映卫生系统响应机制类型、监管环境以及现有相关证据的“地图”,并评估了在南非特定地方卫生系统(西开普省)中这些机制的功能。通过综合索引文献和灰色文献,提供了对国家和省级政策与指南中规定的现有“正式”响应机制的背景化理解(n=379)。研究运用了多种形式的二次分析,包括主题分析和时间序列分析,对定量和定性数据进行了分析。最后,通过三位当地领域专家的专家核查过程,检查分析和得出的结论的真实性。
国家、省和地区政策都规定了卫生系统的响应能力,包括旨在促进公众反馈的各种机制。然而,尽管有些机制已经在运行且有效,但所有机制都面临着资源和能力限制、角色和责任不明确等重大障碍。大多数机制都是孤立存在的,未能融入整体改善响应能力的策略中。
机制之间缺乏协同作用或对各种反馈形式的分析,是错失的机会。决策者无法看到反馈的趋势或差距,无法检查是否所有声音都被听到,或者无法全面了解系统响应是如何发生的。迫切需要研究宏观“整体”系统响应(水平、发展、趋势),以推动卫生系统的发展。