Repository logo
 

The Institute for Global Health and Development

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/9

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Balabanova, Dina

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Equity in community health insurance schemes: Evidence and lessons from Armenia
    (2009-02-22) Polonsky, Jonny; Balabanova, Dina; McPake, Barbara; Poletti, Timothy; Vyas, Seema; Ghazaryan, Olga; Yanni, Mohga Kamal
    Introduction Community health insurance (CHI) schemes are growing in importance in lowincome settings, where health systems based on user fees have resulted in significant barriers to care for the poorest members of communities. They increase revenue, access and financial protection, but concerns have been expressed about the equity of such schemes and their ability to reach the poorest. Few programmes routinely evaluate equity impacts, even though this is usually a key objective. This lack of evidence is related to the difficulties in collecting reliable data on utilization and socio-economic status. This paper describes the findings of an evaluation of the equity of Oxfam?s CHI schemes in rural Armenia. Methods Members of a random sample of 506 households in villages operating insurance schemes in rural Armenia were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Household wealth scores based on ownership of assets were generated using principal components analysis. Logistic and Poisson regression analyses were performed to identify the determinants of health facility utilization, and equity of access across socio-economic strata. Results The schemes have achieved a high level of equity, according to socio-economic status, age and gender. However, although levels of participation compare favourably with international experience, they remain relatively low due to a lack of affordability and a package of primary care that does not include coverage for chronic disease. Conclusion This paper demonstrates that the distribution of benefits among members of this community-financing scheme is equitable, and that such a degree of equity in community insurance can be achieved in such settings, possibly through an emphasis on accountability and local management. Such a scheme presents a workable model for investing in primary health care in resource-poor settings.