BACKGROUND: Contracting out of governmental health services is a financing strategy that governs the way in which public sector funds are used to have services delivered by non-governmental health service providers (NGPs). It represents a contract between the government and an NGP, detailing the mechanisms and conditions by which the latter should provide health care on behalf of the government. Contracting out is intended to improve the delivery and use of healthcare services. This Review updates a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of contracting out governmental clinical health services to non-governmental service provider/s, on (i) utilisation of clinical health services; (ii) improvement in population health outcomes; (iii) improvement in equity of utilisation of these services; (iv) costs and cost-effectiveness of delivering the services; and (v) improvement in health systems performance.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, ProQuest, and Global Health on 07 April 2017, along with two trials registers - ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform - on 17 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies, comparing government-delivered clinical health services versus those contracted out to NGPs, or comparing different models of non-governmental-delivered clinical health services.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened all records, extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the net effect for all outcomes. A positive value favours the intervention whilst a negative value favours the control. Effect estimates are presented with 95% confidence intervals. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and we prepared a Summary of Findings table.
MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies, a cluster-randomised trial conducted in Cambodia, and a controlled before-after study conducted in Guatemala. Both studies reported that contracting out over 12 months probably makes little or no difference in (i) immunisation uptake of children 12 to 24 months old (moderate-certainty evidence), (ii) the number of women who had more than two antenatal care visits (moderate-certainty evidence), and (iii) female use of contraceptives (moderate-certainty evidence).The Cambodia trial reported that contracting out may make little or no difference in the mortality over 12 months of children younger than one year of age (net effect = -4.3%, intervention effect P = 0.36, clustered standard error (SE) = 3.0%; low-certainty evidence), nor to the incidence of childhood diarrhoea (net effect = -16.2%, intervention effect P = 0.07, clustered SE = 19.0%; low-certainty evidence). The Cambodia study found that contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending over 12 months on curative care (net effect = $ -19.25 (2003 USD), intervention effect P = 0.01, clustered SE = $ 5.12; moderate-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report equity in the use of clinical health services and in adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update confirms the findings of the original review. Contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending on curative care (moderate-certainty evidence), but probably makes little or no difference in other health utilisation or service delivery outcomes (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). Therefore, contracting out programmes may be no better or worse than government-provided services, although additional rigorously designed studies may change this result. The literature provides many examples of contracting out programmes, which implies that this is a feasible response when governments fail to provide good clinical health care. Future contracting out programmes should be framed within a rigorous study design to allow valid and reliable measures of their effects. Such studies should include qualitative research that assesses the views of programme implementers and beneficiaries, and records implementation mechanisms. This approach may reveal enablers for, and barriers to, successful implementation of such programmes.
BACKGROUND: Universal Health Coverage is widely endorsed as the pivotal goal in global health, however substantial barriers to accessing health services for children in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) exist. Failure to access healthcare is an important contributor to child mortality in these settings. Barriers to access have been widely studied, however effective interventions to overcome barriers and increase access to services for children are less well documented.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing access to health services for children aged 5 years and below in LMIC. Four databases (EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, and PSYCINFO) were searched in January 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions that aimed to increase: health care utilisation; immunisation uptake; and compliance with medication or referral. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled study designs were included in the review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results.
RESULTS: Fifty seven studies were included in the review. Approximately half of studies (49%) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Most studies were randomised controlled trials (n = 44; 77%) with the remaining studies employing non-randomised designs. Very few studies were judged as high quality. Studies evaluated a diverse range of interventions and various outcomes. Supply side interventions included: delivery of services at or closer to home and service level improvements (eg. integration of services). Demand side interventions included: educational programmes, text messages, and financial or other incentives. Interventions that delivered services at or closer to home and text messages were in general associated with a significant improvement in relevant outcomes. A consistent pattern was not noted for the remaining studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This review fills a gap in the literature by providing evidence of the range and effectiveness of interventions that can be used to increase access for children aged ≤5 years in LMIC. It highlights some intervention areas that seem to show encouraging trends including text message reminders and delivery of services at or close to home. However, given the methodological limitations found in existing studies, the results of this review must be interpreted with caution.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420160334200.
In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the private sector-including international donors, non-governmental organizations, for-profit providers and traditional healers-plays a significant role in health financing and delivery. The use of the private sector in furthering public health goals is increasingly common. By working with the private sector through public -: private engagement (PPE), states can harness private sector resources to further public health goals. PPE initiatives can take a variety of forms and understanding of these models is limited. This paper presents the results of a Campbell systematic literature review conducted to establish the types and the prevalence of PPE projects for health service delivery and financing in Southern Africa. PPE initiatives identified through the review were categorized according to a PPE typology. The review reveals that the full range of PPE models, eight distinct models, are utilized in the Southern African context. The distribution of the available evidence-including significant gaps in the literature-is discussed, and key considerations for researchers, implementers, and current and potential PPE partners are presented. It was found that the literature is disproportionately representative of PPE initiatives located in South Africa, and of those that involve for-profit partners and international donors. A significant gap in the literature identified through the study is the scarcity of information regarding the relationship between international donors and national governments. This information is key to strengthening these partnerships, improving partnership outcomes and capacitating recipient countries. The need for research that disaggregates PPE models and investigates PPE functioning in context is demonstrated.
BACKGROUND: District managers are playing an increasingly important role in determining the performance of health systems in low- and middle-income countries as a result of decentralization.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to hire, retain and train district health systems managers in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched a wide range of international databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also searched online resources of international agencies, including the World Bank, to find relevant grey literature. Searches were conducted in December 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA: District health systems managers are those persons who are responsible for overseeing the operations of the health system within a defined, subnational geographical area that is designated as a district. Hiring and retention interventions include those that aim to increase the attractiveness of district management positions, as well as those related to hiring and retention processes, such as private contracting. Training interventions include education programs to develop future managers and on-the-job training programs for current managers. To be included, studies needed to use one of the following study designs: randomized controlled trial, nonrandomized controlled trial, controlled before-and-after study, and interrupted time series analysis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We report measures of effect in the same way that the primary study authors have reported them. Due to the varied nature of interventions included in this review we could not pool data across studies.
MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met our inclusion criteria. The findings of one study conducted in Cambodia provide low quality evidence that private contracts with international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for district health systems management ('contracting-in') may improve health care access and utilization. Contracting-in increased use of antenatal care by 28% and use of public facilities by 14%. However, contracting-in was not found to have an effect on population health outcomes. The findings of the other study provide low quality evidence that intermittent training courses over 18 months may improve district health system managers’ performance. In three countries in Latin America, managers who did not receive the intermittent training courses had between 2.4 and 8.3 times more management deficiencies than managers who received the training courses. No studies that aimed to investigate interventions for retaining district health systems managers met our study selection criteria for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that contracting-in may improve health care accessibility and utilization and that intermittent training courses may improve district health systems managers’ performance. More evidence is required before firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of these interventions in diverse settings. Other interventions that might be promising candidates for hiring and retaining (e.g., government regulations, professional support programs) as well as training district health systems managers (e.g., in-service workshops with on-site support) have not been adequately investigated.
INTRODUCTION: Private sector healthcare delivery in low- and middle-income countries is sometimes argued to be more efficient, accountable, and sustainable than public sector delivery. Conversely, the public sector is often regarded as providing more equitable and evidence-based care. We performed a systematic review of research studies investigating the performance of private and public sector delivery in low- and middle-income countries.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Peer-reviewed studies including case studies, meta-analyses, reviews, and case-control analyses, as well as reports published by non-governmental organizations and international agencies, were systematically collected through large database searches, filtered through methodological inclusion criteria, and organized into six World Health Organization health system themes: accessibility and responsiveness; quality; outcomes; accountability, transparency, and regulation; fairness and equity; and efficiency. Of 1,178 potentially relevant unique citations, data were obtained from 102 articles describing studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Comparative cohort and cross-sectional studies suggested that providers in the private sector more frequently violated medical standards of practice and had poorer patient outcomes, but had greater reported timeliness and hospitality to patients. Reported efficiency tended to be lower in the private than in the public sector, resulting in part from perverse incentives for unnecessary testing and treatment. Public sector services experienced more limited availability of equipment, medications, and trained healthcare workers. When the definition of "private sector" included unlicensed and uncertified providers such as drug shop owners, most patients appeared to access care in the private sector; however, when unlicensed healthcare providers were excluded from the analysis, the majority of people accessed public sector care. "Competitive dynamics" for funding appeared between the two sectors, such that public funds and personnel were redirected to private sector development, followed by reductions in public sector service budgets and staff.
CONCLUSIONS: Studies evaluated in this systematic review do not support the claim that the private sector is usually more efficient, accountable, or medically effective than the public sector; however, the public sector appears frequently to lack timeliness and hospitality towards patients.
BACKGROUND There is a growing interest in the role of private health providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Informal private providers (IPPs) provide a significant portion of health care in many LMICs, but they have not received training in allopathic medicine. Interventions have been developed to take advantage of their potential to expand access to essential health services, although their success is not well measured. This paper addresses this information gap through a review of interventions designed to improve the quality, coverage, or costs of health services provided by IPPs in LMICs. METHODS A search for published literature in the last 15 years for any intervention dealing with IPPs in a LMIC, where at least one outcome was measured, was conducted through electronic databases PubMed and Global Health, as well as Google for grey literature from the Internet. RESULTS A total of 1272 articles were retrieved, of which 70 separate studies met inclusion criteria. The majority (70%) of outcomes measured proximate indicators such as provider knowledge (61% were positive) and behaviour (56% positive). Training IPPs was the most common intervention tested (77% of studies), but the more effective strategies did not involve training alone. Interventions that changed the institutional relationships and contributed to changing the incentives and accountability environment were most successful, and often required combinations of interventions. CONCLUSION Although there are documented interventions among IPPs, there are few good quality studies. Strategies that change the market conditions for IPPs-by changing incentives and accountability-appear more likely to succeed than those that depend on building individual capacities of IPPs. Understanding the effectiveness of these and other strategies will also require more rigorous research designs that assess contextual factors and document outcomes over longer periods.
BACKGROUND: Delays in receiving effective care during labor and at birth may be fatal for the mother and fetus, contributing to 2 million annual intrapartum stillbirths and intrapartum-related neonatal deaths each year.
OBJECTIVE: We present a systematic review of strategies to link families and facilities, including community mobilization, financial incentives, emergency referral and transport systems, prenatal risk screening, and maternity waiting homes.
RESULTS: There is moderate quality evidence that community mobilization with high levels of community engagement can increase institutional births and significantly reduce perinatal and early neonatal mortality. Meta-analysis showed a doubling of skilled birth attendance and a 36% reduction in early neonatal mortality. However, no data are available on intrapartum-specific outcomes. Evidence is limited, but promising, that financial incentive schemes and community referral/transport systems may increase rates of skilled birth attendance and emergency obstetric care utilization; however, impact on mortality is unknown. Current evidence for maternity waiting homes and risk screening is low quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Empowering communities is an important strategy to reduce the large burden of intrapartum complications. Innovations are needed to bring the poor closer to obstetric care, such as financial incentives and cell phone technology. New questions need to be asked of "old" strategies such as risk screening and maternity waiting homes. The effect of all of these strategies on maternal and perinatal mortality, particularly intrapartum-related outcomes, requires further evaluation.
The purpose of this study is to review the research literature on the effectiveness of contracting-out of primary health care services and its impact on both programme and health systems performance in low- and middle-income countries. Due to the heightened interest in improving accountability relationships in the health sector and in rapidly scaling up priority interventions, there is an increasing amount of interest in and experimentation with contracting-out. Overall, while the review of the selected studies suggests that contracting-out has in many cases improved access to services, the effects on other performance dimensions such as equity, quality and efficiency are often unknown. Moreover, little is known about the system-wide effects of contracting-out, which could be either positive or negative. Although the study results leave open the question of how contracting-out can be used as a policy tool to improve overall health system performance, the results indicate that the context in which contracting-out is implemented and the design features of the interventions are likely to greatly influence the chances for success.
BACKGROUND: Globally, immunization services have been the center of renewed interest with increased funding to improve services, acceleration of the introduction of new vaccines, and the development of a health systems approach to improve vaccine delivery. Much of the credit for the increased attention is due to the work of the GAVI Alliance and to new funding streams. If routine immunization programs are to take full advantage of the newly available resources, managers need to understand the range of proven strategies and approaches to deliver vaccines to reduce the incidence of diseases. In this paper, we present strategies that may be used at the sub-national level to improve routine immunization programs.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies and projects reported in the published and gray literature. Each paper that met our inclusion criteria was rated based on methodological rigor and data were systematically abstracted. Routine-immunization - specific papers with a methodological rigor rating of greater than 60% and with conclusive results were reported.
RESULTS: Greater than 11,000 papers were identified, of which 60 met our inclusion criteria and 25 papers were reported. Papers were grouped into four strategy approaches: bringing immunizations closer to communities (n = 11), using information dissemination to increase demand for vaccination (n = 3), changing practices in fixed sites (n = 4), and using innovative management practices (n = 7).
CONCLUSION: Immunization programs are at a historical crossroads in terms of developing new funding streams, introducing new vaccines, and responding to the global interest in the health systems approach to improving immunization delivery. However, to complement this, actual service delivery needs to be strengthened and program managers must be aware of proven strategies. Much was learned from the 25 papers, such as the use of non-health workers to provide numerous services at the community level. However it was startling to see how few papers were identified and in particular how few were of strong scientific quality. Further well-designed and well-conducted scientific research is warranted. Proposed areas of additional research include integration of additional services with immunization delivery, collaboration of immunization programs with new partners, best approaches to new vaccine introduction, and how to improve service delivery.
BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest in the role of the private for-profit sector in health service provision in low- and middle-income countries. The private sector represents an important source of care for all socioeconomic groups, including the poorest and substantial concerns have been raised about the quality of care it provides. Interventions have been developed to address these technical failures and simultaneously take advantage of the potential for involving private providers to achieve public health goals. Limited information is available on the extent to which these interventions have successfully expanded access to quality health services for poor and disadvantaged populations. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by presenting the results of a systematic literature review on the effectiveness of working with private for-profit providers to reach the poor. METHODS: The search topic of the systematic literature review was the effectiveness of interventions working with the private for-profit sector to improve utilization of quality health services by the poor. Interventions included social marketing, use of vouchers, pre-packaging of drugs, franchising, training, regulation, accreditation and contracting-out. The search for published literature used a series of electronic databases including PubMed, Popline, HMIC and CabHealth Global Health. The search for grey and unpublished literature used documents available on the World Wide Web. We focused on studies which evaluated the impact of interventions on utilization and/or quality of services and which provided information on the socioeconomic status of the beneficiary populations. RESULTS: A total of 2483 references were retrieved, of which 52 qualified as impact evaluations. Data were available on the average socioeconomic status of recipient communities for 5 interventions, and on the distribution of benefits across socioeconomic groups for 5 interventions. CONCLUSION: Few studies provided evidence on the impact of private sector interventions on quality and/or utilization of care by the poor. It was, however, evident that many interventions have worked successfully in poor communities and positive equity impacts can be inferred from interventions that work with types of providers predominantly used by poor people. Better evidence of the equity impact of interventions working with the private sector is needed for more robust conclusions to be drawn.
Contracting out of governmental health services is a financing strategy that governs the way in which public sector funds are used to have services delivered by non-governmental health service providers (NGPs). It represents a contract between the government and an NGP, detailing the mechanisms and conditions by which the latter should provide health care on behalf of the government. Contracting out is intended to improve the delivery and use of healthcare services. This Review updates a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess effects of contracting out governmental clinical health services to non-governmental service provider/s, on (i) utilisation of clinical health services; (ii) improvement in population health outcomes; (iii) improvement in equity of utilisation of these services; (iv) costs and cost-effectiveness of delivering the services; and (v) improvement in health systems performance.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, ProQuest, and Global Health on 07 April 2017, along with two trials registers - ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform - on 17 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies, comparing government-delivered clinical health services versus those contracted out to NGPs, or comparing different models of non-governmental-delivered clinical health services.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two authors independently screened all records, extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the net effect for all outcomes. A positive value favours the intervention whilst a negative value favours the control. Effect estimates are presented with 95% confidence intervals. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and we prepared a Summary of Findings table.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included two studies, a cluster-randomised trial conducted in Cambodia, and a controlled before-after study conducted in Guatemala. Both studies reported that contracting out over 12 months probably makes little or no difference in (i) immunisation uptake of children 12 to 24 months old (moderate-certainty evidence), (ii) the number of women who had more than two antenatal care visits (moderate-certainty evidence), and (iii) female use of contraceptives (moderate-certainty evidence).The Cambodia trial reported that contracting out may make little or no difference in the mortality over 12 months of children younger than one year of age (net effect = -4.3%, intervention effect P = 0.36, clustered standard error (SE) = 3.0%; low-certainty evidence), nor to the incidence of childhood diarrhoea (net effect = -16.2%, intervention effect P = 0.07, clustered SE = 19.0%; low-certainty evidence). The Cambodia study found that contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending over 12 months on curative care (net effect = $ -19.25 (2003 USD), intervention effect P = 0.01, clustered SE = $ 5.12; moderate-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report equity in the use of clinical health services and in adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
This update confirms the findings of the original review. Contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending on curative care (moderate-certainty evidence), but probably makes little or no difference in other health utilisation or service delivery outcomes (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). Therefore, contracting out programmes may be no better or worse than government-provided services, although additional rigorously designed studies may change this result. The literature provides many examples of contracting out programmes, which implies that this is a feasible response when governments fail to provide good clinical health care. Future contracting out programmes should be framed within a rigorous study design to allow valid and reliable measures of their effects. Such studies should include qualitative research that assesses the views of programme implementers and beneficiaries, and records implementation mechanisms. This approach may reveal enablers for, and barriers to, successful implementation of such programmes.
