Meghani Ankita, Hariyani Shreya, Das Priyanka, Bennett Sara
Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Johns Hopkins India Private Limited (JHIPL), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022 Jul 22;2(7):e0000750. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000750. eCollection 2022.
The COVID-19 pandemic has strained public health resources and overwhelmed health systems capacity of countries worldwide. In India, the private sector is a significant source of healthcare particularly in large states like Uttar Pradesh (UP). This study sought to examine: (i) the government's approach to engaging the private health sector in the COVID-19 response in UP; (ii) the effects of government's engagement on private providers' practices and (iii) the barriers and facilitators to effective private sector engagement during the period. While the literature acknowledges weaknesses in private sector engagement during emergencies, our study provides deep empirical insight into how this occurs, drawing on the UP experience. We reviewed 102 Government of UP (GOUP) policy documents and conducted 36 in-depth interviews with government officials, technical partners, and private providers at district- and state-levels. We developed timelines for policy change based on the policy review and analyzed interview transcripts thematically using a framework analysis. We found that GOUP's engagement of the private sector and private providers' experiences varied substantially. While the government rapidly engaged and mobilized private laboratories, and enlisted private hospitals to provide COVID-19 services, it undertook only limited engagement of solo private providers who largely acted as referral units for suspected cases and reported data to support contact tracing efforts. Informal private providers played no formal role in the COVID-19 response, but in one district supported community-level contact tracing. Allopathic, alternative medicine, and diagnostic private providers faced common barriers and facilitators affecting their engagement relating to provider fear, communication, testing capacity, case reporting, and regulations. The establishment of mixed diagnostic networks during COVID-19 demonstrates the potential for public-private collaboration, however, our study also reveals missed opportunities to engage smaller-scale private health providers and establish mechanisms to effectively communicate and mobilize them during the pandemic, and beyond.
新冠疫情使全球各国的公共卫生资源紧张,医疗系统不堪重负。在印度,私营部门是医疗保健的重要来源,尤其是在北方邦(UP)等大邦。本研究旨在探讨:(i)北方邦政府在新冠疫情应对中与私营医疗部门合作的方式;(ii)政府的合作对私营医疗服务提供者做法的影响;以及(iii)在此期间私营部门有效参与的障碍和促进因素。虽然文献承认在紧急情况下私营部门参与存在不足,但我们的研究借鉴北方邦的经验,对其实际情况提供了深入的实证见解。我们审查了102份北方邦政府(GOUP)的政策文件,并对地区和邦级的政府官员、技术合作伙伴以及私营医疗服务提供者进行了36次深入访谈。我们根据政策审查制定了政策变化时间表,并使用框架分析法对访谈记录进行了主题分析。我们发现,GOUP与私营部门的合作以及私营医疗服务提供者的经历差异很大。政府迅速与私营实验室合作并动员其参与,还招募私立医院提供新冠服务,但对个体私营医疗服务提供者的参与有限,这些个体主要作为疑似病例的转诊单位,并报告数据以支持接触者追踪工作。非正规私营医疗服务提供者在新冠疫情应对中没有发挥正式作用,但在一个地区支持社区层面的接触者追踪。对抗疗法、替代医学和诊断类私营医疗服务提供者在参与过程中面临共同的障碍和促进因素,涉及提供者的恐惧、沟通、检测能力、病例报告和法规等方面。在新冠疫情期间建立混合诊断网络显示了公私合作的潜力,然而,我们的研究也揭示了在疫情期间及之后未能充分利用机会让小规模私营医疗服务提供者参与,以及建立有效沟通和动员他们的机制。