Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract High-quality data are essential to monitor and evaluate community health worker (CHW) programmes in low- and middle-income countries striving towards universal health coverage. This mixed-methods study was conducted in two purposively selected districts in Kenya (where volunteers collect data) and two in Malawi (where health surveillance assistants are a paid cadre). We calculated data verification ratios to quantify reporting consistency for selected health indicators over 3 months across 339 registers and 72 summary reports. These indicators are related to antenatal care, skilled delivery, immunization, growth monitoring and nutrition in Kenya; new cases, danger signs, drug stock-outs and under-five mortality in Malawi. We used qualitative methods to explore perceptions of data quality with 52 CHWs in Kenya, 83 CHWs in Malawi and 36 key informants. We analysed these data using a framework approach assisted by NVivo11. We found that only 15% of data were reported consistently between CHWs and their supervisors in both contexts. We found remarkable similarities in our qualitative data in Kenya and Malawi. Barriers to data quality mirrored those previously reported elsewhere including unavailability of data collection and reporting tools; inadequate training and supervision; lack of quality control mechanisms; and inadequate register completion. In addition, we found that CHWs experienced tensions at the interface between the formal health system and the communities they served, mediated by the social and cultural expectations of their role. These issues affected data quality in both contexts with reports of difficulties in negotiating gender norms leading to skipping sensitive questions when completing registers; fabrication of data; lack of trust in the data; and limited use of data for decision-making. While routine systems need strengthening, these more nuanced issues also need addressing. This is backed up by our finding of the high value placed on supportive supervision as an enabler of data quality.

Indonesia has been shifting from ensuring access to health services towards improving service quality. Accreditation has been used as quality assurance (QA) mechanism, first in hospitals and subsequently in primary health care facilities, including Puskesmas (community health centres). QA provides measures of whether services meet quality targets, but quality improvement (QI) is needed to make change and achieve improvements. QI is a cyclical process with cycles of problem identification, solution testing and observation. We investigated the factors which influenced the process of QI based on experience of maternal health QI teams in three Puskesmas in Cianjur district, West Java province, Indonesia. Qualitative data were collected using 28 in-depth interviews at two points of time: pre- (April 2016) and post- QI intervention (April 2017), involving national, provincial, district and Puskesmas managers; and Puskesmas QI team members. Thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted. We found four main factors contributed to the process of QI: 1) leadership, including awareness and attitude of leader(s) towards QI, involvement of leader(s) in the QI process and decision-making in budget allocation for QI; 2) staff enthusiasm and multidisciplinary collaboration; 3) a culture where QI is integrated in existing responsibilities; and 4) the ongoing Puskesmas accreditation process, which increased the value of QI to the organisation. Making QI a success in the decentralised Indonesian system requires action at four levels. At individual level, leadership attributes can create an internal quality environment and drive organisational cultural change. At team level, staff enthusiasm and collaboration can be triggered through engaging and tasking everyone in the QI process and having a shared vision of what quality should look like. At organisational level, QI should be integrated in planned activities, ensuring financial and human resources. Lastly, QI can be encouraged when it is implemented by the wider health system as part of national accreditation programmes.

The economic evaluation of health system interventions is challenging, and methods guidance on how to respond to these challenges is lacking. The REACHOUT consortium developed and evaluated complex interventions for community health program quality improvement in six countries in Africa and Asia. Reflecting on the challenges we faced in conducting an economic evaluation alongside REACHOUT, we developed a Structured Economic Evaluation Process for Complex Health System Interventions (SEEP-CI). The SEEP-CI aims to establish the threshold effect size that would justify investment in a complex intervention, and provide an assessment to a decision-maker of how likely it is that the intervention can achieve this impact. We illustrate how the SEEP-CI could have been applied to REACHOUT to identify outcomes where the intervention might have impact and causal mechanisms, through which that impact might occur, guide data collection by focusing on proximal outcomes most likely to illustrate the effectiveness of the intervention, identify the size of health gain required to justify investment in the intervention, and indicate the assumptions required to accept that such health gains are credible. Further research is required to determine the feasibility and acceptability of the SEEP-CI, and the contexts in which it could be used.

Background With the 40th anniversary of the Declaration of Alma-Ata, a global effort is underway to re-focus on strengthening primary health care systems, with emphasis on leveraging community health workers (CHWs) towards the goal of achieving universal health coverage for all. Institutionalizing effective, sustainable community health systems is currently limited by a lack of standard metrics for measuring CHW performance and the systems they work within. Developed through iterative consultations, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and in partnership with USAID and UNICEF, this paper details a framework, list of indicators, and measurement considerations for monitoring CHW performance in low- and middle-income countries. Methods A review of peer-reviewed articles, reports, and global data collection tools was conducted to identify key measurement domains in monitoring CHW performance. Three consultations were successively convened with global stakeholders, community health implementers, advocates, measurement experts, and Ministry of Health representatives using a modified Delphi approach to build consensus on priority indicators. During this process, a structured, web-based survey was administered to identify the importance and value of specific measurement domains, sub-domains, and indicators determined through the literature reviews and initial stakeholder consultations. Indicators with more than 75% support from participants were further refined with expert qualitative input. Results Twenty-one sub-domains for measurement were identified including measurement of incentives for CHWs, supervision and performance appraisal, data use, data reporting, service delivery, quality of services, CHW absenteeism and attrition, community use of services, experience of services, referral/counter-referral, credibility/trust, and programmatic costs. Forty-six indicators were agreed upon to measure the sub-domains. In the absence of complete population enumeration and digitized health information systems, the quality of metrics to monitor CHW programs is limited. Conclusions Better data collection approaches at the community level are needed to strengthen management of CHW programs and community health systems. The proposed list of metrics balances exhaustive and pragmatic measurement of CHW performance within primary healthcare systems. Adoption of the proposed framework and associated indicators by CHW program implementors may improve programmatic effectiveness, strengthen their accountability to national community health systems, drive programmatic quality improvement, and plausibly improve the impact of these programs.

Background Small and sick newborn care (SSNC) is critical for national neonatal mortality reduction targets by 2030. Investment cases could inform implementation planning and enable coordinated resource mobilisation. We outline development of an investment case for Tanzania to estimate additional financing for scaling up SSNC to 80% of districts as part of health sector strategies to meet the country’s targets. Methods We followed five steps: (1) reviewed national targets, policies and guidelines; (2) modelled potential health benefits by increased coverage of SSNC using the Lives Saved Tool; (3) estimated setup and running costs using the Neonatal Device Planning and Costing Tool, applying two scenarios: (A) all new neonatal units and devices with optimal staffing, and (B) half new and half modifying, upgrading, or adding resources to existing neonatal units; (4) calculated budget impact and return on investment (ROI) and (5) identified potential financing opportunities. Results Neonatal mortality rate was forecast to fall from 20 to 13 per 1000 live births with scale-up of SSNC, superseding the government 2025 target of 15, and close to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 target of <12. At 85% endline coverage, estimated cumulative lives saved were 36,600 by 2025 and 80,000 by 2030. Total incremental costs were estimated at US$166 million for scenario A (US$112 million set up and US$54 million for running costs) and US$90 million for scenario B (US$65 million setup and US$25 million for running costs). Setup costs were driven by infrastructure (83%) and running costs by human resources (60%). Cost per capita was US$0.93 and the ROI is estimated to be between US$8–12 for every dollar invested. Conclusions ROI for SSNC is higher compared to other health investments, noting many deaths averted followed by full lifespan. This is conservative since disability averted is not included. Budget impact analysis estimated a required 2.3% increase in total government health expenditure per capita from US$40.62 in 2020, which is considered affordable, and the government has already allocated additional funding. Our proposed five-step SSNC investment case has potential for other countries wanting to accelerate progress.

Burkina Faso joined the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents (GFF) in 2017 to address persistent gaps in funding for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition (RMNCAH-N). Few empirical papers deal with how global funding mechanisms, and specifically GFF, support resource mobilisation for health nationally. This study describes the policy processes of developing the GFF planning documents (the Investment Case and Project Appraisal Document) in Burkina Faso. We conducted an exploratory qualitative policy analysis. Data collection included document review (  = 74) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (  = 23). Data were analysed based on the components of the health policy triangle. There was strong national political support to RMNCAH-N interventions, and the process of drawing up the investment case (IC) and the project appraisal document was inclusive and multi-sectoral. Despite high-level policy commitments, subsequent implementation of the World Bank project, including the GFF contribution, was perceived by respondents as challenging, even after the project restructuring process occurred. These challenges were due to ongoing policy fragmentation for RMNCAH-N, navigation of differing procedures and perspectives between stakeholders in the setting up of the work, overcoming misunderstandings about the nature of the GFF, and weak institutional anchoring of the IC. Insecurity and political instability also contributed to observed delays and difficulties in implementing the commitments agreed upon. To tackle these issues, transformational and distributive leaderships should be promoted and made effective. Few studies have examined national policy processes linked to the GFF or other global health initiatives. This kind of research is needed to better understand the range of challenges in aligning donor and national priorities encountered across diverse health systems contexts. This study may stimulate others to ensure that the GFF and other global health initiatives respond to local needs and policy environments for better implementation.

Background Qualitative research networks (QRNs) bring together researchers from diverse contexts working on multi-country studies. The networks may themselves form a consortium or may contribute to a wider research agenda within a consortium with colleagues from other disciplines. The purpose of a QRN is to ensure robust methods and processes that enable comparisons across contexts. Under the Self-Testing Africa (STAR) initiative and the REACHOUT project on community health systems, QRNs were established, bringing together researchers across countries to coordinate multi-country qualitative research and to ensure robust methods and processes allowing comparisons across contexts. QRNs face both practical challenges in facilitating this iterative exchange process across sites and conceptual challenges interpreting findings between contexts. This paper distils key lessons and reflections from both QRN experiences on how to conduct trustworthy qualitative research across different contexts with examples from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya, Indonesia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Methods The process of generating evidence for this paper followed a thematic analysis method: themes initially identified were refined during several rounds of discussions in an iterative process until final themes were agreed upon in a joint learning process. Results Four guiding principles emerged from our analysis: a) explicit communication strategies that sustain dialogue and build trust and collective reflexivity; b) translation of contextually embedded concepts; c) setting parameters for contextualizing, and d) supporting empirical and conceptual generalisability. Under each guiding principle, we describe how credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability can be enhanced and share good practices to be considered by other researchers. Conclusions Qualitative research is often context-specific with tools designed to explore local experiences and understandings. Without efforts to synthesise and systematically share findings, common understandings, experiences and lessons are missed. The logistical and conceptual challenges of qualitative research across multiple partners and contexts must be actively managed, including a shared commitment to continuous ‘joint learning’ by partners. Clarity and agreement on concepts and common methods and timelines at an early stage is critical to ensure alignment and focus in intercountry qualitative research and analysis processes. Building good relationships and trust among network participants enhance the quality of qualitative research findings.

The Global Financing Facility (GFF) was launched in 2015 to catalyse increased domestic and external financing for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, adolescent health, and nutrition. Half of the deaths along this continuum are neonatal deaths, stillbirths or maternal deaths; yet these topics receive the least aid financing across the continuum. To conduct a policy content analysis of maternal and newborn health (MNH), including stillbirths, in GFF country planning documents, and assess the mortality burden related to the investment. Content analysis was conducted on 24 GFF policy documents, investment cases and project appraisal documents (PADs), from 11 African countries. We used a systematic data extraction approach and applied a framework for analysis considering mindset, measures, and money for MNH interventions and mentions of mortality outcomes. We compared PAD investments to MNH-related deaths by country. For these 11 countries, USD$1,894 million of new funds were allocated through the PADs, including USD$303 million (16%) from GFF. All documents had strong content on MNH, with particular focus on pregnancy and childbirth interventions. The investment cases commonly included comprehensive results frameworks, and PADs generally had less technical content and fewer indicators. Mortality outcomes were mentioned, especially for maternal. Stillbirths were rarely included as targets. Countries had differing approaches to funding descriptions. PAD allocations are commensurate with the burden. The GFF country plans present a promising start in addressing MNH. Emphasising links between investments and burden, explicitly including stillbirth, and highlighting high-impact packages, as appropriate, could potentially increase impact.

Improving quality of care could avert most of the 4.5 million maternal and neonatal deaths and stillbirths that occur each year. The Global Financing Facility (GFF) aims to catalyse the national scale-up of maternal and newborn health (MNH) interventions through focused investments. Achieving impact and value for money requires high, equitable coverage and high quality of interventions. This study examines whether the rhetoric of increasing coverage together with quality has informed investment strategies in MNH through a secondary analysis of 25 GFF documents from 11 African countries. The analysis shows that the country GFF-related documents incorporate some MNH-related quality of care components; however, there is a lack of clarity in what is meant by quality and the absence of core MNH quality of care components as identified by the World Health Organization's MNH quality framework, especially experience of care and newborn care. Many of the Investment Cases have a more diagonal focus on MNH service delivery considering the clinical dimensions of quality, while the investments described in the Project Appraisal Documents are primarily on horizontal structural aspects of the health system strengthening environment. The GFF is at the forefront of investing in MNH globally and provides an important opportunity to explicitly link health systems investments and quality interventions within the MNH continuum of care for optimal impact.

The Global Financing Facility (GFF), launched in 2015, aims to catalyse funding for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health, and nutrition. Few independent assessments have evaluated its processes and impact. We conducted a multi-layered policy analysis of GFF documents - the Investment Cases (ICs) and the GFF-linked World Bank Project Appraisal Documents (PADs) - examining the content of GFF documents for 28 countries, comparing four tracer themes (maternal and newborn health, adolescent health, community health, and quality), and analysing the policy processes in four country studies (Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda). From 2015 to 2022, GFF-linked PADs reported US$ 14.5 billion of funding across 26 countries through 30 PADs, with GFF contributing 4% to this value. GFF investments primarily focused on service delivery, governance, and performance-based financing. Countries received more targeted investments for maternal and newborn health and adolescent health linked to their burden of these tracer themes. Attention to community health and quality varied. ICs were broader than PADs and more inclusive in their development. Local contexts shaped policy processes. GFF supported priority-setting and learning; however, translating priorities into resourced actions proved challenging. Power dynamics influenced country ownership, donor coordination and resource mobilisation. The GFF is a significant opportunity to advance health for vulnerable populations. Progress in transparency and data use is evident, but accountability gaps, power imbalances, and limited engagement with civil society and private sector hinder national ownership. Further research is needed to determine GFF's attribution to catalytic resource mobilization.