Browsing by Person "Palmer, Natasha"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6

Health system strengthening—Reflections on its meaning, assessment, and our state of knowledge
(Wiley, 2019-08-06) Witter, Sophie; Palmer, Natasha; Balabanova, Dina; Mounier-Jack, Sandra; Martineau, Tim; Klicpera, Anna; Jensen, Charity; Pugliese-Garcia, Miguel; Gilson, Lucy
Comprehensive reviews of health system strengthening (HSS) interventions are rare, partly because of lack of clarity on definitions of the term but also the potentially huge scale of the evidence. We reflect on the process of undertaking such an evidence review recently, drawing out suggestions on definitions of HSS and approaches to assessment, as well as summarising some key conclusions from the current evidence base. The key elements of a clear definition include, in our view, consideration of scope (with effects cutting across building blocks in practice, even if not in intervention design, and also tackling more than one disease), scale (having national reach and cutting across levels of the system), sustainability (effects being sustained over time and addressing systemic blockages), and effects (impacting on health outcomes, equity, financial risk protection, and responsiveness). We also argue that agreeing a framework for design and evaluation of HSS is urgent. Most HSS interventions have theories of change relating to specific system blocks, but more work is needed on capturing their spillover effects and their contribution to meeting overarching health system process goals. We make some initial suggestions about such goals, to reflect the features that characterise a “strong health system.” We highlight that current findings on “what works” are just indicative, given the limitations and biases in what has been studied and how, and argue that there is need to rethink evaluation methods for HSS beyond finite interventions and narrow outcomes. Clearer concepts, frameworks, and methods can support more coherent HSS investment.
Holy grail or convenient excuse? Stakeholder perspectives on the role of health system strengthening evaluation in global health resource allocation
(BioMed Central, 2024-10-24) Sriram, Veena; Palmer, Natasha; Pereira, Shreya; Bennett, Sara
Background: The role of evaluation evidence in guiding health systems strengthening (HSS) investments at the global-level remains contested. A lack of rigorous impact evaluations is viewed by some as an obstacle to scaling resources. However, others suggest that power dynamics and knowledge hierarchies continue to shape perceptions of rigor and acceptability in HSS evaluations. This debate has had major implications on HSS resource allocation in global-level funding decisions. Yet, few studies have examined the relationship between HSS evaluation evidence and prioritization of HSS. In this paper, we explore the perspectives of key global health stakeholders, specifically around the nature of evidence sought regarding HSS and its potential impact on prioritization, the challenges in securing such evidence, and the drivers of intra- and inter-organizational divergences. We conducted a stakeholder analysis, drawing on 25 interviews with senior representatives of major global health organizations, and utilized inductive approaches to data analysis to develop themes. Results: Our analysis suggests an intractable challenge at the heart of the relationship between HSS evaluations and prioritization. A lack of evidence was used as a reason for limited investments by some respondents, citing their belief that HSS was an unproven and potentially risky investment which is driven by the philosophy of HSS advocates rather than evidence. The same respondents also noted that the ‘holy grail’ of evaluation evidence that they sought would be rigorous studies that assess the impact of investments on health outcomes and financial accountability, and believed that methodological innovations to deliver this have not occurred. Conversely, others held HSS as a cross-cutting principle across global health investment decisions, and felt that the type of evidence sought by some funders is unachievable and not necessary – an ‘elusive quest’ – given methodological challenges in establishing causality and attribution. In their view, evidence would not change perspectives in favor of HSS investments, and evidence gaps were used as a ‘convenient excuse’. Respondents raised additional concerns regarding the design, dissemination and translation of HSS evaluation evidence. Conclusions: Ongoing debates about the need for stronger evidence on HSS are often conducted at cross-purposes. Acknowledging and navigating these differing perspectives on HSS evaluation may help break the gridlock and find a more productive way forward.
How do we design and evaluate health system strengthening? Collaborative development of a set of health system process goals
(2022-12-28) Bertone, Maria Paola; Palmer, Natasha; Kruja, Krista; Witter, Sophie; HSSEC Working Group 1
Strong health systems are widely recognized as a key requirement for improving health outcomes and also for ensuring that health systems are equitable, resilient and responsive to population needs. However, the related term Health Systems Strengthening (HSS) remains unclear and contested, and this creates challenges for how HSS can be monitored and evaluated. A previous review argued for the need to rethink evaluation methods for HSS to examine systemic effects of HSS investments. In line with that recommendation, this article describes the work of the HSS Evaluation Collaborative (HSSEC) in the development of a framework and tool to guide HSS monitoring, evaluation and learning by national and global actors. It was developed based on a rapid review of the literature and iterative expert consultation, with the aim of going beyond a focus on the building blocks of health systems and on health system outputs or health outcomes to think about the features that constitute a strong health system. As a result, we developed a list of 22 health system process goals which represent desirable attributes for health systems. The health system process goals (or rather, progress towards them) are influenced by positive and negative, intended and unintended effects of HSS interventions. Finally, we illustrate how the health system process goals can be operationalised for prospective and retrospective HSS monitoring, evaluation and learning, and how they also have the potential to be used for opening a space for participatory, inclusive policy dialogue about HSS.
Integrating healthcare financing for refugees into national health systems: findings from a rapid review of the literature
(Elsevier, 2025-10-16) Bertone, Maria Paola; Palmer, Natasha; Witter, Sophie
As the number of refugees increases and displacement becomes protracted, providing equitable healthcare in sustainable ways is increasingly challenging. The Global Compact for Refugees calls for greater inclusion of refugees in national health systems. However, evidence is limited on the most suitable approaches to achieve integration, including from a health financing perspective. This study reviewed normative and empirical literatures on health financing for refugees, reflecting on existing arrangements, and their level of integration with national health systems. A total of 52 documents were reviewed following a purposeful search of grey and published literature. Data were analysed according to core health financing sub-functions as defined by the WHO, specifically reflecting on pathways and approaches to integration for each. The analysis found that challenges remains in relation to funding for refugee healthcare, and areas of focus concern fair burden-sharing and engagement of development funders. Fund pooling proves to be a potential entry point for integration to reduce fragmentation in health financing through use of existing mechanisms (budgets or social health insurance schemes), despite challenges highlighted in the empirical literature. Fewer documents look at purchasing and benefit packages, and they highlight the importance of tailoring those to the specific needs of refugees. In relation to equity and efficiency, integration is often assumed to lead to improvements, but evidence is limited and issues related to the underlying weaknesses of the national health system might hamper the benefits of integration. Overall, the review findings support the development of hypotheses as to how best support health financing integration processes, and highlight areas for further research.
Refugee integration in national health systems of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): evidence synthesis and future research agenda
(Elsevier, 2025-09-12) Olabi, Amina; Palmer, Natasha; Bertone, Maria Paola; Loffreda, Giulia; Bou-Orm, Ibrahim; Sempé, Lucas; Vera Espinoza, Marcia; Dakessian, Arek; Kadetz, Paul; Ager, Alastair; Witter, Sophie
This paper reviews evidence on healthcare responses for refugees, documenting the different approaches and their effectiveness and impact in particular in relation to supporting integrating refugees into national health systems. The review adopted a purposeful, iterative approach, utilizing electronic databases, grey literature, and reference lists from relevant studies. A total of 167 studies, primarily from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), focusing on refugees and forcibly displaced persons with empirical data, were included. The review highlights a substantial literature on refugee health and healthcare access, with well-covered areas including delivery models, access barriers, gaps in coverage, and specific health services such as psychosocial care, non-communicable diseases, mental health, and maternal and child health. However, less attention is given to integration models, health system responses, and their impact on system resilience and social cohesion. Few studies examine the costs, feasibility, or sustainability of integration models, and little research focuses on health system perspectives or comparative analyses. Moreover, the host health system's status, capacity, and needs are often underexplored. Some countries are particularly well-represented in studies, e.g. Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Uganda. There is however a paucity of data that would provide the basis for more quantitative or analytical evaluation from a systems perspective. This gap highlights the need for further research on effective integration models, their operational aspects, and their long-term impact on local health systems' resilience and sustainability. To support this research agenda, we propose a conceptual framework to provide analytic guidance for future research on healthcare responses for refugees and health system integration.
Understanding the political economy of reforming global health initiatives – insights from global and country levels
(Springer, 2025-07-09) Witter, Sophie; Palmer, Natasha; Jouhaud, Rosemary; Zaidi, Shehla; Carillon, Severine; English, Rene; Loffreda, Giulia; Venables, Emilie; Habib, Shifa Salman; Tan, Jeff; Hane, Fatouma; Bertone, Maria Paola; Hosseinalipour, Seyed-Moeen; Ridde, Valery; Shoaib, Asad; Faye, Adama; Dudley, Lilian; Daniels, Karen; Blanchet, Karl
Introduction Since 2000, the number and role of global health initiatives (GHIs) has been growing, with these platforms playing an increasingly important role in pooling and disbursing funds dedicated to specific global health priorities. While recognising their important contribution, there has also been a growth in concerns about distortions and inefficiencies linked to the GHIs and attempts to improve their alignment with country health systems. There is a growing momentum to adjust GHIs to the current broader range of global health threats, such as non-communicable diseases, humanitarian crises and climate change, and against the backdrop of the recent aid cuts. However, reform attempts are challenged by the political economy of the current structures. Methods In this article, we draw on research conducted as part of the Future of Global Health Initiatives process. The study adopted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods approach, drawing from a range of data sources and data collection methods, including a global and regional level analysis as well as three embedded country case studies in Pakistan, South Africa and Senegal. All data was collected from February to July 2023. 271 documents were analysed in the course of the study, along with data from 335 key informants and meeting participants in 66 countries and across a range of constituencies. For this paper, data were analysed using a political economy framework which focused on actors, context (especially governance and financing) and framing. Findings In relation to actors, the GHIs themselves have become increasingly complex (both internally and in their interrelations with other global health actors and one another). They have a large range of clients (including at national level and amongst multilateral agencies) which function as collaborators as well as competitors. Historically there have been few incentives for any of the actors to maximise collaboration given the competitive funding landscape. Power to exert pressure for reforms sits ultimately with bilateral and private funders, though single-issue northern non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are also cited as important influencers. Funders have not collaborated to enable reforms, despite concerns amongst a number of them, because of the helpful functional role of GHIs, which serves funder interests. Some key global boards are reported to be engineered for stasis, and there are widespread concerns about lack of transparency and over-claiming (by some GHIs) of their results. Framing of narratives about achievements and challenges is important to enable or block reforms and are vigorously contested, with stakeholders often selecting different outcomes to emphasise in justifying positions. Conclusion GHIs have played an important role in the global health ecosystem but despite formal accountability structures to include recipient governments, substantive accountability has been focused upwards to funders, with risk management strategies which prioritise tracking resources more than improved national health system performance. Achieving consensus on reforms will be challenging but current funding pressures and new threats are creating a sense of urgency, which may shift positions. Political economy analysis can model and influence these debates.