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: Inspection systems are used in healthcare to promote quality improvements (i.e. to achieve changes in organisational structures or processes, healthcare provider behaviour and patient outcomes). These systems are based on the assumption that externally promoted adherence to evidence-based standards (through inspection/assessment) will result in higher quality of healthcare. However, the benefits of external inspection in terms of organisational-, provider- and patient-level outcomes are not clear. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review, published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases for studies up to 1 June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, HMIC, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There was no language restriction and we included studies regardless of publication status. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers, accreditation bodies and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), regarding any further published or unpublished work. We also searched an online database of systematic reviews (PDQ-evidence.org).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effect of external inspection against external standards on healthcare organisation change, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes in hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other community-based healthcare organisations.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we produced a narrative results summary. We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update. One cluster RCT involving 20 South African public hospitals and one ITS involving all acute hospital trusts in England, met the inclusion criteria. A trust is a National Health Service hospital which has opted to withdraw from local authority control and be managed by a trust instead.The cluster RCT reported mixed effects of external inspection on compliance with COHSASA (Council for Health Services Accreditation for South Africa) accreditation standards and eight indicators of hospital quality. Improved total compliance score with COHSASA accreditation standards was reported for 21/28 service elements: mean intervention effect was 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23% to 37%) (P < 0.001). The score increased from 48% to 78% in intervention hospitals, while remaining the same in control hospitals (43%). The median intervention effect for the indicators of hospital quality of care was 2.4% (range -1.9% to +11.8%).The ITS study evaluated compliance with policies to address healthcare-acquired infections and reported a mean reduction in MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infection rates of 100 cases per quarter (95% CI -221.0 to 21.5, P = 0.096) at three months' follow-up and an increase of 70 cases per quarter (95% CI -250.5 to 391.0; P = 0.632) at 24 months' follow-up. Regression analysis showed similar MRSA rates before and after the external inspection (difference in slope 24.27, 95% CI -10.4 to 58.9; P = 0.147).Neither included study reported data on unanticipated/adverse consequences or economic outcomes. The cluster RCT reported mainly outcomes related to healthcare organisation change, and no patient reported outcomes other than patient satisfaction.The certainty of the included evidence from both studies was very low. It is uncertain whether external inspection accreditation programmes lead to improved compliance with accreditation standards. It is also uncertain if external inspection infection programmes lead to improved compliance with standards, and if this in turn influences healthcare-acquired MRSA infection rates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review highlights the paucity of high-quality controlled evaluations of the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of external inspection systems. If policy makers wish to understand the effectiveness of this type of intervention better, there needs to be further studies across a range of settings and contexts and studies reporting outcomes important to patients.
OBJECTIVE: Drug counterfeiting has serious public health and safety implications. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to combat or prevent drug counterfeiting.
DATA SOURCES: We searched multiple electronic databases and the grey literature up to March 2014. Two reviewers completed, in duplicate and independently, the study selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: We included randomised trials, non-randomised studies, and case studies examining any intervention at the health system-level to combat or prevent drug counterfeiting. Outcomes of interest included changes in failure rates of tested drugs and changes in prevalence of counterfeit medicines. We excluded studies that focused exclusively on substandard, degraded or expired drugs, or that focused on medication errors.
APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS: We assessed the risk of bias in each included study. We reported the results narratively and, where applicable, we conducted meta-analyses.
RESULTS: We included 21 studies representing 25 units of analysis. Overall, we found low quality evidence suggesting positive effects of drug registration (OR=0.23; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.67), and WHO-prequalification of drugs (OR=0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35) in reducing the prevalence of counterfeit and substandard drugs. Low quality evidence suggests that licensing of drug outlets is probably ineffective (OR=0.66; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.05). For multifaceted interventions (including a mix of regulations, training of inspectors, public-private collaborations and legal actions), low quality evidence suggest they may be effective. The single RCT provided moderate quality evidence of no effect of 'two extra inspections' in improving drug quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers and stakeholders would benefit from registration and WHO-prequalification of drugs and may also consider multifaceted interventions. Future effectiveness studies should address the methodological limitations of the available evidence.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42014009269.
BACKGROUND: The inequitable distribution of health professionals, within countries, poses an important obstacle to the optimal functioning of health services.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing the proportion of health professionals working in rural and other underserved areas.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, including specialised register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group; March 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1988 to March 2014), CINAHL (1982 to March 2014), LILACS (February 2014), Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (up to April 2014), Global Health (March 2014) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (June 2013). We also searched reference lists of all papers and relevant reviews identified, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding any further published or unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating the effects of various interventions (e.g. educational, financial, regulatory or support strategies) on the recruitment or retention, or both, of health professionals in underserved areas.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts of potentially relevant studies for eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data from eligible studies.
MAIN RESULTS: For this first update of the original review, we screened 8945 records for eligibility. We retrieved and assessed the full text of 125 studies. Only one study met the inclusion criteria of the review. This interrupted time series study, conducted in Taiwan, found that the implementation of a National Health Insurance scheme in 1995 was associated with improved equity in the geographic distribution of physicians and dentists. We judged the certainty of the evidence provided by this one study very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited reliable evidence regarding the effects of interventions aimed at addressing the inequitable distribution of health professionals. Well-designed studies are needed to confirm or refute findings of observational studies of educational, financial, regulatory and supportive interventions that might influence healthcare professionals' decisions to practice in underserved areas. Governments and medical schools should ensure that when interventions are implemented, their impacts are evaluated using scientifically rigorous methods to establish the true effects of these measures on healthcare professional recruitment and retention in rural and other underserved settings.
BACKGROUND: Health workers move between public and private organizations in both urban and rural areas during the course of their career. Depending on the proportion of the population served by public or private organizations in a particular setting, this movement may result in imbalances in the number of healthcare providers available relative to the population receiving care from that sector. However, both public and private organizations are needed as each sector has unique contributions to make to the effective delivery of health services.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of financial incentives and movement restriction interventions to manage the movement of health workers between public and private organizations in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (10 November 2012); EMBASE (7 June 2011); LILACS (9 June 2011); MEDLINE (10 November 2012); CINAHL (13 August 2012); and the British Nursing Index (13 August 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials; controlled before-and-after studies if pre- and post-intervention periods for study and control groups were the same and there were at least two units included in both the intervention and control groups; uncontrolled and controlled interrupted time series studies if the point in time when the intervention occurred was clearly defined and there were at least three or more data points before and after the intervention. Interventions included payment of special allowances, increasing salaries, bonding health workers, offering bursary schemes, scholarships or lucrative terminal benefits, and hiring people on contract basis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies to the titles and abstracts of all articles obtained from the search. The same two review authors independently screened the full reports of the selected citations. At each stage, we compared the results and resolved discrepancies through discussion with a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS: We found no studies that were eligible for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no rigorous studies on the effects of interventions to manage the movement of health workers between public and private organizations in low- and middle-income countries. Health worker availability is a key obstacle in delivery of health services. Interventions to make the health sector more responsive to the expectations of populations by having more health workers in the sector that serves most people would contribute to the more efficient use of the health workforce. More research is needed to assess the effect of increase in salaries, offering scholarships or bonding on movement of health workers in one sector compared with another.
BACKGROUND: Pharmaceuticals are important interventions that could improve people's health. Pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies are used as cost-containment measures to determine or affect the prices that are paid for drugs. Internal reference pricing establishes a benchmark or reference price within a country which is the maximum level of reimbursement for a group of drugs. Other policies include price controls, maximum prices, index pricing, price negotiations and volume-based pricing.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies on health outcomes, healthcare utilisation, drug expenditures and drug use.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library (including the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Register) (searched 22/10/2012); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and MEDLINE, Ovid (searched 22/10/2012); EconLit, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); PAIS International, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); World Wide Political Science Abstracts, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); INRUD Bibliography (searched 22/10/2012); Embase, Ovid (searched 14/12/2010); NHSEED, part of The Cochrane Library (searched 08/12/2010); LILACS, VHL (searched 14/12/2010); International Political Science Abstracts (IPSA), Ebsco (searched (17/12/2010); OpenSIGLE (searched 21/12/10); WHOLIS, WHO (searched 17/12/2010); World Bank (Documents and Reports) (searched 21/12/2010); Jolis (searched 09/10/2011); Global Jolis (searched 09/10/2011) ; OECD (searched 30/08/2005); OECD iLibrary (searched 30/08/2005); World Bank eLibrary (searched 21/12/2010); WHO - The Essential Drugs and Medicines web site (browsed 21/12/2010).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Policies in this review were defined as laws; rules; financial and administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. To be included a study had to include an objective measure of at least one of the following outcomes: drug use, healthcare utilisation and health outcomes or costs (expenditures); the study had to be a randomised trial, non-randomised trial, interrupted time series (ITS), repeated measures (RM) study or a controlled before-after study of a pharmaceutical pricing or purchasing policy for a large jurisdiction or system of care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Results were summarised in tables. There were too few comparisons with similar outcomes across studies to allow for meta-analysis or meaningful exploration of heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (seven identified in the update): 17 of reference pricing, one of which also assessed maximum prices, and one of index pricing. None of the studies were trials. All included studies used ITS or RM analyses. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Three reference pricing studies reported cumulative drug expenditures at one year after the transition period. Two studies reported the median relative insurer's cumulative expenditures, on both reference drugs and cost share drugs, of -18%, ranging from -36% to 3%. The third study reported relative insurer's cumulative expenditures on total market of -1.5%. Four reference pricing studies reported median relative insurer's expenditures on both reference drugs and cost share drugs of -10%, ranging from -53% to 4% at one year after the transition period. Four reference pricing studies reported a median relative change of 15% in reference drugs prescriptions at one year (range -14% to 166%). Three reference pricing studies reported a median relative change of -39% in cost share drugs prescriptions at one year (range -87% to -17%). One study of index pricing reported a relative change of 55% (95% CI 11% to 98%) in the use of generic drugs and -43% relative change (95% CI -67% to -18%) in brand drugs at six months after the transition period. The same study reported a price change of -5.3% and -1.1% for generic and brand drugs respectively six months after the start of the policy. One study of maximum prices reported a relative change in monthly sales volume of all statins of 21% (95% CI 19% to 24%) after one year of the introduction of this policy. Four studies reported effects on mortality and healthcare utilisation, however they were excluded because of study design limitations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the studies of pricing and purchasing policies that met our inclusion criteria evaluated reference pricing. We found that internal reference pricing may reduce expenditures in the short term by shifting drug use from cost share drugs to reference drugs. Reference pricing may reduce related expenditures with effects on reference drugs but the effect on expenditures of cost share drugs is uncertain. Reference pricing may increase the use of reference drugs and may reduce the use of cost share drugs. The analysis and reporting of the effects on patients' drug expenditures were limited in the included studies and administration costs were not reported. Reference pricing effects on health are uncertain due to lack of evidence. The effects of other purchasing and pricing policies are until now uncertain due to sparse evidence. However, index pricing may reduce the use of brand drugs, increase the use of generic drugs, and may also slightly reduce the price of the generic drug when compared with no intervention.
BACKGROUND: Maternal and neonatal mortality rates remain high in many low-income and middle-income countries. Different approaches for the improvement of birth outcomes have been used in community-based interventions, with heterogeneous effects on survival. We assessed the effects of women's groups practising participatory learning and action, compared with usual care, on birth outcomes in low-resource settings.
METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials undertaken in Bangladesh, India, Malawi, and Nepal in which the effects of women's groups practising participatory learning and action were assessed to identify population-level predictors of effect on maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, and stillbirths. We also reviewed the cost-effectiveness of the women's group intervention and estimated its potential effect at scale in Countdown countries.
FINDINGS: Seven trials (119,428 births) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of all trials showed that exposure to women's groups was associated with a 37% reduction in maternal mortality (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.32-0.94), a 23% reduction in neonatal mortality (0.77, 0.65-0.90), and a 9% non-significant reduction in stillbirths (0.91, 0.79-1.03), with high heterogeneity for maternal (I(2)=58.8%, p=0.024) and neonatal results (I(2)=64.7%, p=0.009). In the meta-regression analyses, the proportion of pregnant women in groups was linearly associated with reduction in both maternal and neonatal mortality (p=0.026 and p=0.011, respectively). A subgroup analysis of the four studies in which at least 30% of pregnant women participated in groups showed a 55% reduction in maternal mortality (0.45, 0.17-0.73) and a 33% reduction in neonatal mortality (0.67, 0.59-0.74). The intervention was cost effective by WHO standards and could save an estimated 283,000 newborn infants and 41,100 mothers per year if implemented in rural areas of 74 Countdown countries.
INTERPRETATION: With the participation of at least a third of pregnant women and adequate population coverage, women's groups practising participatory learning and action are a cost-effective strategy to improve maternal and neonatal survival in low-resource settings.
FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, Ammalife, and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Birmingham and the Black Country programme.
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.
BACKGROUND: In many countries, national, regional and local inter- and intra-agency collaborations have been introduced to improve health outcomes. Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of locally developed partnerships which target changes in health outcomes and behaviours.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of interagency collaboration between local health and local government agencies on health outcomes in any population or age group.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, AMED, ASSIA, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DoPHER, EMBASE, ERIC, HMIC, IBSS, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, OpenGrey, PsycINFO, Rehabdata, Social Care Online, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, TRoPHI and Web of Science from 1966 through to January 2012. 'Snowballing' methods were used, including expert contact, citation tracking, website searching and reference list follow-up.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) where the study reported individual health outcomes arising from interagency collaboration between health and local government agencies compared to standard care. Studies were selected independently in duplicate, with no restriction on population subgroup or disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified (28,212 participants). Only two were considered to be at low risk of bias. Eleven studies contributed data to the meta-analyses but a narrative synthesis was undertaken for all 16 studies. Six studies examined mental health initiatives, of which one showed health benefit, four showed modest improvement in one or more of the outcomes measured but no clear overall health gain, and one showed no evidence of health gain. Four studies considered lifestyle improvements, of which one showed some limited short-term improvements, two failed to show health gains for the intervention population, and one showed more unhealthy lifestyle behaviours persisting in the intervention population. Three studies considered chronic disease management and all failed to demonstrate health gains. Three studies considered environmental improvements and adjustments, of which two showed some health improvements and one did not.
Meta-analysis of three studies exploring the effect of collaboration on mortality showed no effect (pooled relative risk of 1.04 in favour of control, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Analysis of five studies (with high heterogeneity) looking at the effect of collaboration on mental health resulted in a standardised mean difference of -0.28, a small effect favouring the intervention (95% CI -0.51 to -0.06). From two studies, there was a statistically significant but clinically modest improvement in the global assessment of function symptoms score scale, with a pooled mean difference (on a scale of 1 to 100) of -2.63 favouring the intervention (95% CI -5.16 to -0.10).
For physical health (6 studies) and quality of life (4 studies) the results were not statistically significant, the standardised mean differences were -0.01 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.07) and -0.08 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.27), respectively.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between local health and local government is commonly considered best practice. However, the review did not identify any reliable evidence that interagency collaboration, compared to standard services, necessarily leads to health improvement. A few studies identified component benefits but these were not reflected in overall outcome scores and could have resulted from the use of significant additional resources. Although agencies appear enthusiastic about collaboration, difficulties in the primary studies and incomplete implementation of initiatives have prevented the development of a strong evidence base. If these weaknesses are addressed in future studies (for example by providing greater detail on the implementation of programmes; using more robust designs, integrated process evaluations to show how well the partners of the collaboration worked together, and measurement of health outcomes) it could provide a better understanding of what might work and why. It is possible that local collaborative partnerships delivering environmental Interventions may result in health gain but the evidence base for this is very limited.
Evaluations of interagency collaborative arrangements face many challenges. The results demonstrate that collaborative community partnerships can be established to deliver interventions but it is important to agree goals, methods of working, monitoring and evaluation before implementation to protect programme fidelity and increase the potential for effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of health care fraud and the political, legislative and administrative attentions paid to it, combating fraud remains a challenge to the health systems. We aimed to identify, categorize and assess the effectiveness of the interventions to combat health care fraud and abuse.
METHODS: The interventions to combat health care fraud can be categorized as the interventions for 'prevention' and 'detection' of fraud, and 'response' to fraud. We conducted sensitive search strategies on Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from 1975 to 2008, and Medline from 1975-2010, and on relevant professional and organizational websites. Articles assessing the effectiveness of any intervention to combat health care fraud were eligible for inclusion in our review. We considered including the interventional studies with or without a concurrent control group. Two authors assessed the studies for inclusion, and appraised the quality of the included studies. As a limited number of studies were found, we analyzed the data using narrative synthesis.
FINDINGS: The searches retrieved 2229 titles, of which 221 full-text studies were assessed. We found no studies using an RCT design. Only four original articles (from the US and Taiwan) were included: two studies within the detection category, one in the response category, one under the detection and response categories, and no studies under the prevention category. The findings suggest that data-mining may improve fraud detection, and legal interventions as well as investment in anti-fraud activities may reduce fraud.
DISCUSSION: Our analysis shows a lack of evidence of effect of the interventions to combat health care fraud. Further studies using robust research methodologies are required in all aspects of dealing with health care fraud and abuse, assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methods to prevent, detect, and respond to fraud in health care.
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.
