Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda

BMC Health Services Research

Bart Criel³  Bruno Marchal³  Christine Kirunga Tashobya²  Rhona Mijumbi¹  Freddie Ssengooba²  Juliet Nabyonga-Orem⁴ 

[1]Regional East African Community Health (REACH) policy initiative, Uganda, College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda

[2]Makerere University, School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda

[3]Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp-Belgium, Nationalestraat 155, Antwerp, 2000, Belgium

[4]WHO Regional Office for Africa, Health systems and services cluster, Brazaville, Congo

关键词: Uganda;    Knowledge translation;    Policy development;    Public facilities;    Health care;    User fees;   

Others  :  1109820
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0639-5

 received in 2014-06-23, accepted in 2014-12-08,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Several countries in Sub Saharan Africa have abolished user fees for health care but the extent to which such a policy decision is guided by evidence needs further exploration. We explored the barriers and facilitating factors to uptake of evidence in the process of user fee abolition in Uganda and how the context and stakeholders involved shaped the uptake of evidence. This study builds on previous work in Uganda that led to the development of a middle range theory (MRT) outlining the main facilitating factors for knowledge translation (KT). Application of the MRT to the case of abolition of user fees contributes to its refining.

Methods

Employing a theory-driven inquiry and case study approach given the need for in-depth investigation, we reviewed documents and conducted interviews with 32 purposefully selected key informants. We assessed whether evidence was available, had or had not been considered in policy development and the reasons why and; assessed how the actors and the context shaped the uptake of evidence.

Results

Symbolic, conceptual and instrumental uses of evidence were manifest. Different actors were influenced by different types of evidence. While technocrats in the ministry of health (MoH) relied on formal research, politicians relied on community complaints. The capacity of the MoH to lead the KT process was weak and the partnerships for KT were informal. The political window and alignment of the evidence with overall government discourse enhanced uptake of evidence. Stakeholders were divided, seemed to be polarized for various reasons and had varying levels of support and influence impacting the uptake of evidence.

Conclusion

Evidence will be taken up in policy development in instances where the MoH leads the KT process, there are partnerships for KT in place, and the overall government policy and the political situation can be expected to play a role. Different actors will be influenced by different types of evidence and their level of support and influence will impact the uptake of evidence. In addition, the extent to which a policy issue is contested and, whether stakeholders share similar opinions and preferences will impact the uptake of evidence.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Nabyonga-Orem et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Costello A: Commentary: should mother and child health services in developing countries be free?BMJ 1997, 314(7085):941.
• [2]Audibert M, Mathonnat J: Cost recovery in Mauritania: initial lessons. Health Policy Plan 2000, 15(1):66-75.
• [3]Boyer S, Marcellin F, Ongolo-Zogo P, Abega SC, Nantchouang R, Spire B, Moatti JP: Financial barriers to HIV treatment in Yaounde, Cameroon: first results of a national cross-sectional survey. Bull World Health Organ 2009, 87(4):279-287.
• [4]van der Geest S, Macwan’gi M, Kamwanga J, Mulikelela D, Mazimba A, Mwangelwa M: User fees and drugs: what did the health reforms in Zambia achieve? Health Policy Plan 2000, 15(1):59-65.
• [5]Nabyonga J, Desmet M, Karamagi H, Kadama PY, Omaswa FG, Walker O: Abolition of cost-sharing is pro-poor: evidence from Uganda. Health Policy Plan 2005, 20(2):100-108.
• [6]Ridde V, Diarra A: A process evaluation of user fees abolition for pregnant women and children under five years in two districts in Niger (West Africa).BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9:89.
• [7]Lagarde M, Barroy H, Palmer N: Assessing the effects of removing user fees in Zambia and Niger. J Health Serv Res Policy 2012, 17(1):30-36.
• [8]Nabyonga Orem J, Mugisha F, Kirunga C, Macq J, Criel B: Abolition of user fees: the Uganda paradox. Health Policy Plan 2011, 26(2):ii41-ii51.
• [9]Gilson L, McIntyre D: Removing user fees for primary care in Africa: the need for careful action. BMJ 2005, 331(7519):762-765.
• [10]McPake B, Brikci N, Cometto G, Schmidt A, Araujo E: Removing user fees: learning from international experience to support the process. Health Policy Plan 2011, 26(2):ii104-ii117.
• [11]Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A: Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 14. Reporting guidelines.Health Res Policy Syst 2006, 4:26.
• [12]Pang T: Evidence to action in the developing world: what evidence is needed?Bull World Health Organ 2007, 85(4):247.
• [13]Bowen S, Zwi AB: Pathways to “evidence-informed” policy and practice: a framework for action.PLoS Med 2005, 2(7):e166.
• [14]Lomas J, Culver T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S: Conceptualizing and Combining evidence for health system guidance _accessed from [http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/migrated/pdf/insightAction/evidence_e.pdf ]. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2005.
• [15]Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Lemiux-Charlse L, Black NA: The impact of context on evidence utilisation: a framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendation. Soc Sci Med 2006, 63(7):1811-1824.
• [16]Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur E: Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med 2004, 58(1):207-217.
• [17]Moat KA, Lavis JN, Abelson J: How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis. Milbank Q 2013, 91(3):604-648.
• [18]Weible CM, Sabatier PA, McQueen K: Themes and variations: taking stock of the advocacy Coaliation framework. Policy Stud J 2009, 37(1):121-140.
• [19]Young J: Research, policy and practice: why developing countries are different. J Int Dev 2005, 17:727-734.
• [20]Crosby B: Stakeholder analysis: a vitaltool for strategic management. USAID, Washington DC; 1992.
• [21]Sauerborn R, Nitayarumphong S, Gerhardus A: Strategies to enhance the use of health systems research for health sector reform. Trop Med Int Health 1999, 4(12):827-835.
• [22]Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham I: Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ 2009, 181(3–4):165-168.
• [23]Estabrooks CA, Thompson DS, Lovely JJ, Hofmeyer A: A guide to knowledge translation theory. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006, 26(1):25-36.
• [24]Hanney SR, Gonzalez-Block MA, Buxton MJ, Kogan M: The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment.Health Res Policy Syst 2003, 1(1):2.
• [25]Canadian Institute of Health research: Developing a CIHR framework to measure the impact of health research (cihr synthesis report). In: More about knowledge translation at CIHR. CIHR, vol. Retrieved January 2014, from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MR21-65-2005E.pdf,. Ottawa ON K1A 0W9: CIHR; 2005.
• [26]Buse K, Mays N, Walt G: Making health policy. McGraw-Hill International, Berkshire England; 2012.
• [27]Nabyonga JO, Mafigiri DK, Marchal B, Ssengooba F, Macq J, Criel B: Research, evidence and policymaking: the perspectives of policy actors on improving uptake of evidence in health policy development and implementation in Uganda.BMC Public Health 2012, 12:109.
• [28]Merton RK: Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New York; 1968.
• [29]Yin RK: Case study research: design and methods pp 51. Sage, Newbury Park CA; 1984.
• [30]Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis JL, Tremblay E: Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q 2010, 88(4):444-483.
• [31]Moat KA, Abelson J: Analyzing the influence of institutions on health policy development in Uganda: a case study of the decision to abolish user fees. Afr Health Sci 2011, 11(4):578-586.
• [32]UNICEF: The Bamako Initiative Recommendations to the Executive Board for Program Co-ordination 1989 – 1993. UNICEF E/ICEF/1988/P/L.40, New York; 1988.
• [33]Mahler H: Health for all by the year 2000. WHO Chron 1975, 29:457-461.
• [34]The World Bank Grouphttp://www.worlddbank.org/development/sap.1485.html , Structural adjustment Program, accessed April 2014.
• [35]Government of Uganda: Local Government Act. Ministry of Local Government (MoLG), Kampala Uganda; 1997.
• [36]Government of Uganda: National user charges guidelines. Ministry of Health (MoH), Kampala - Uganda; 2000.
• [37]Government of Uganda: Poverty Eradication Action Plan 2004/05–2007/08. Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED), Kampala Uganda; 2004.
• [38]Government of Uganda: National Health Policy I. Ministry of Health (MoH), Kampala Uganda; 2000.
• [39]Government of Uganda; Annual health sector performance reports. Ministry of Health (MoH). Kampala Uganda; 2001–2005
• [40]Pearson M: Issues paper: the case of abolition of user fees for primary health services. In. London, UK; 2004.
• [41]The East African Standard: Museveni, read my lips, politics is a taxing job. In: The East African Standard. Nairobi Kenya; April 30 2001.
• [42]Government of Uganda: Uganda Poverty Partcipatory Assessment Project. Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED), Kampala Uganda; 2000.
• [43]Nabyonga Orem J, Marchal B, Mafigiri D, Ssengooba F, Macq J, Da Silveira VC, Criel B: Perspectives on the role of stakeholders in knowledge translation in health policy development in Uganda.BMC Health Serv Res 2013, 13:324.
• [44]Yin RK: Case study research: design and methods pp 56. Sage, Newbury Park CA; 1984.
• [45]Chen HT, Rossi PH: Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Eval Program Plann 1989, 12(4):2999-2306.
• [46]Chen HT, Rossi PH: Evaluating with sense - the theory driven approach. Eval Rev 1983, 7(3):283-302.
• [47]Lee BC, Collier PM, Cullen J: Reflections on the use of case studies in the accounting, management and organizational disciplines. Qual Res Organ Manag Int J 2007, 2(3):169-178.
• [48]Yin RK: Case study research: design and methods pp 9–14. Sage, Newbury Park CA; 1984.
• [49]Paul AA: Decision making by objection and the Cuban misile crisis. Adm Sci Q 1983, 28:201-222.
• [50]Lawrence TP: A field evaluation of perspectives on organisational decision making. Adm Sci Q 1986, 31:365-388.
• [51]Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD: Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study.BMJ 2009, 339:b3496.
• [52]O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J: The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008, 13(2):92-98.
• [53]Bernard HR: Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. AltaMira Press, CA; 2006.
• [54]Hennink M, Hutter I, Bail A: Qualitative research methods pg 88. Sage, New Delhi; 2011.
• [55]Eden C, Ackermann F: Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. Sage, London; 1998.
• [56]Bryson J: Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA; 1995.
• [57]Creswell J: Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th edition. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River NJ; 2012.
• [58]Young E, Quinn L: Writing effective public policy papers. A Guide to policy advisers in Central and Eastern Europe. LGI, Budapest; 2002.
• [59]Shaw RP, Griffin CC: Financing health care in Sub-Saharan Africa through user fees and insurance. World Bank, Washington, D.C; 1995.
• [60]WHO Uganda office, MoH Uganda, Rukungiri district Uganda: Evaluation of the Bamako Initiative scheme in Rukungiri District. WHO Uganda, Kampala Uganda; 2001.
• [61]Kipp W, Kamugisha J, Burnham G, Rubaale T: Cost-sharing in Kabarole district, Western Uganda: communities’ and health professionals’ perceptions about health financing. J Health Popul Dev Ctries 1999, 2(2):30-38.
• [62]Kipp W, Kamugisha J, Jacobs P, Burnham G, Rubaale T: User fees, health staff incentives, and service utilization in Kabarole District, Uganda. Bull World Health Organ 2001, 79(11):1032-1037.
• [63]Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A: Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence.Health Res Policy Syst 2006, 4:20.
• [64]Mubyazi GM, Gonzalez-Block MA: Research influence on antimalarial drug policy change in Tanzania: case study of replacing chloroquine with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine as the first-line drug.Malar J 2005, 4:51.
• [65]Hennink M, Stephenson R: Using research to inform health policy: barriers and strategies in developing countries. J Health Commun 2005, 10(2):163-180.
• [66]Aaserud M, Lewin S, Innvaer S, Paulsen EJ, Dahlgren AT, Trommald M, Duley L, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD: Translating research into policy and practice in developing countries: a case study of magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia.BMC Health Serv Res 2005, 5:68.
• [67]Government of Uganda: National health accounts report. Ministry of Health (MoH), Kampala Uganda; 2013.
• [68]Ali N, Hill C, Kennedy A, Lisselmuiden C: What factors influence national health research agendas in low and middle income countries? In Record Paper 5. COHRED, Geneva Switzerland; 2006.
• [69]Burris H, Parkhurst J, Adu-Sarkodie Y, Mayaud P: Getting research into policy - Herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) treatment and HIV infection: international guidelines formulation and the case of Ghana.Health Res Policy Syst 2011, 9(1):S5.
• [70]Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A: Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002, 7(4):239-244.
• [71]Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J: A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers.BMC Health Serv Res 2014, 14:2.
• [72]Oliver K, Innvaer S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J: Barriers and facilitators of the use of evidence by policy makers. In An updated systematic review; Second Conference on Knowledge Exchange in public health Holland Fuse conference: How to get practice into science. Manchester University, Noorwijkhout - Nertherlands; 2013.
• [73]Omondi MP, Ombui K, Mungatu J: Factors affecting effective strategy implementation for attainment of Millennium Development Goal 5 by international reproductive health non-governmental organizations in Kenya. He TQM J 2013, 25(5):507-519.
• [74]Kingdon J: Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd edition. HarperCollins College Publishers, New York; 1995.
• [75]Government of Uganda: Uganda National Household Survey: Social Economic Module. Uganda Bureau of statistics (UBOS), Kampala Uganda; 2010.