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.
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.
MAIN FINDINGS: The authors included evidence from 16 studies assessing the effectiveness of 13 contracted-out health-service interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, South Asia and East Asia and the Pacific. The results of the review are heterogeneous. On the one hand, the authors deduce that contracting-out health services significantly improves access and availability, especially within under-served regions. On the other hand, they fail to find conclusive evidence concerning the impact of contracting-out on other dimensions of health-system performance such as equity, quality and efficiency. Indeed, the authors report that these factors are addressed in only a very few studies, and they highlight the need for more rigorous studies exploring the impact of contracting-out health services on the equity, quality and efficiency of health systems. The authors suggest that the effectiveness and success of contracting-out depend on a range of contextual and contract-design factors. More specifically, they observe that contractual financial incentives and the application of a payment-by-performance scheme have been demonstrated to be key determinants in the success of an intervention.Contextual factors related to the capacity of the public sector to develop the contracted-out services and the degree to which these services complement or replace existing services are also important determinants of the impact of contracted-out interventions on the equity, access, quality and efficiency of health systems. Finally, the authors highlight the need for more research on possible side effects of contracting-out interventions, which so far have been only barely assessed. BACKGROUND: During the past decade, improving the performance of health systems has become a key objective for the governments of many developing countries. Contracting-out is defined as a “contractual arrangement by which the government provides compensation to private providers in exchange for a defined set of health services for specified target population”. By providing incentives to health-care professionals and by fostering competition among health-service providers, contracting-out health-service interventions can improve the quality and efficiency of health-care services, leading to improvements in the performance of the health system. The findings of previous reviews on the effectiveness of contracting-out health services are mixed, and this systematic review aims to shed light on the effectiveness of contracting-out on the four main dimensions of health-system performance: access, equity, quality and efficiency. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES: To assess and synthesise the evidence on the impact of contracting-out interventions on health-system performance in developing countries. METHODOLOGY: The authors included all studies assessing the effectiveness of contracting-out health-care services to private providers in developing countries. As quality criteria, the authors only included studies that used one of the following study designs: experimental, non-randomised controlled designs, before-and-after designs without controls and cross-sectional studies with controls. They conducted a systematic search in published and unpublished literature for relevant studies. They searched the electronic database PubMed, and used the search engine Google. They also searched the websites of relevant organisations, including the World Bank and the World Health Organization, and checked previous reviews in the field and other literature for additional studies.Finally, the authors grouped the results by health-system performance dimension – access, equity, quality and efficiency – and synthesised the results in a narrative format. QUALITY ASSESSMENT: This systematic review has clearly defined inclusion criteria and use appropriate methods for analysis of results. It has some limitations however. The search is not sufficiently comprehensive, and it is not clear whether language bias is avoided. Moreover, although the inclusion criteria in terms of methodology are wide, the authors do not report any systematic assessment of the quality of included studies. The authors acknowledge the weaknesses of the evidence base and do not provide and strong policy conclusions, and this mitigates some of the limitations of the review.
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.
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.
