The Institute for Global Health and Development
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/9
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item Political economy analysis of Universal health coverage and health financing reforms in low- and middle-income countries: The role of stakeholder engagement in the research process(BMC, 2021-12-11) Loffreda, Giulia; Bello, Kéfilath; Kiendrébéogo, Joël Arthur; Selenou, Isidore; Ag Ahmed, Mohamed Ali; Dossou, Jean Paul; Witter, Sophie; Bertone, Maria PaolaBackground: Progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is an inherently political process. Political economy analysis (PEA) is gaining momentum as a tool to better understand the role of the political and economic dimensions in shaping and achieving UHC in different contexts. Despite the acknowledged importance of actors and stakeholders in political economy considerations, their role in the PEA research process beyond ‘study subjects’ as potential co-creators of knowledge and knowledge users has been overlooked so far. We therefore aimed to review the approaches with reference to stakeholder engagement during the research process adopted in the current published research on the political economy of UHC and health financing reforms, and the factors favouring (or hindering) uptake and usability of PEA work. Methods: We reviewed the literature to describe if, when and how stakeholders were involved in the research process of studies looking at the political economy of UHC and health financing reforms, and to identify challenges and lessons learned on effective stakeholder engagement and research uptake. We used a standardised search strategy with key terms across several databases; we screened and included articles that focused on PEA and UHC. Additionally, we conducted a short survey of authors of the included studies to complement the information retrieved. Results: 50 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. We found overall little evidence of systematic engagement of stakeholders in the research process, which focused mostly on the data collection phase of the research (i.e., key informant interviews). Our study identifies some reasons for the varying stakeholder engagement. Challenges include PEA requiring specific skills, focusing on sensitive issues and the blurriness in researchers’ and stakeholders’ roles and the multiple roles of stakeholders as research participants, study subjects and research users. Among the approaches that might favour usability of PEA work, we identified early engagement, co-production of research questions, local partners and personal contact, political willingness, and trust and use of prospective analysis. Conclusions: Stakeholder engagement and research uptake are multifaceted concepts and complex processes, particularly when applied to PEA. As such, stakeholder engagement in the research process of PEA of UHC and health financing reforms is limited and underreported. Despite the challenges, however, stakeholder engagement remains key to ensure relevance, usability, and research uptake of PEA studies. More efforts are required to ensure engagement at different stages of the research process and better reporting in published articles.Item Health financing in fragile and conflict-affected settings: What do we know, seven years on?(Elsevier, 2019-04-19) Bertone, Maria Paola; Jowett, Matthew; Dale, Elina; Witter, SophieOver the last few years, there has been growing attention to health systems research in fragile and conflict-affected setting (FCAS) from both researchers and donors. In 2012, an exploratory literature review was conducted to analyse the main themes and findings of recent literature focusing on health financing in FCAS. Seven years later, this paper presents an update of that review, reflecting on what has changed in terms of the knowledge base, and what are the on-going gaps and new challenges in our understanding of health financing in FCAS. A total of 115 documents were reviewed following a purposeful, non-systematic search of grey and published literature. Data were analysed according to key health financing themes, ensuring comparability with the 2012 review. Bibliometric analysis suggests that the field has continued to grow, and is skewed towards countries with a large donor presence (such as Afghanistan). Aid coordination remains the largest single topic within the themes, likely reflecting the dominance of external players, not just substantively but also in relation to research. Many studies are commissioned by external agencies and in addition to concerns about independence of findings there is also likely a neglect of smaller, more home-grown reforms. In addition, we find that despite efforts to coordinate approaches across humanitarian and developmental settings, the literature remains distinct between them. We highlight research gaps, including empirical analysis of domestic and external financing trends across FCAS and non-FCAS over time, to understand better common health financing trajectories, what drives them and their implications. We highlight a dearth of evidence in relation to health financing goals and objectives for UHC (such as equity, efficiency, financial access), which is significant given the relevance of UHC, and the importance of the social and political values which different health financing arrangements can communicate, which also merit in-depth study.Item Minding the gaps: health financing, universal health coverage and gender(Oxford University Press, 2017-07-25) Witter, Sophie; Govender, Veloshnee; Ravindran, T. K. Sundari; Yates, RobertIn a webinar in 2015 on health financing and gender, the question was raised why we need to focus on gender, given that a well-functioning system moving towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) will automatically be equitable and gender balanced. This article provides a reflection on this question from a panel of health financing and gender experts. We trace the evidence of how health-financing reforms have impacted gender and health access through a general literature review and a more detailed case-study of India. We find that unless explicit attention is paid to gender and its intersectionality with other social stratifications, through explicit protection and careful linking of benefits to needs of target populations (e.g. poor women, unemployed men, femaleheaded households), movement towards UHC can fail to achieve gender balance or improve equity, and may even exacerbate gender inequity. Political trade-offs are made on the road to UHC and the needs of less powerful groups, which can include women and children, are not necessarily given priority. We identify the need for closer collaboration between health economists and gender experts, and highlight a number of research gaps in this field which should be addressed. While some aspects of cost sharing and some analysis of expenditure on maternal and child health have been analysed from a gender perspective, there is a much richer set of research questions to be explored to guide policy making. Given the political nature of UHC decisions, political economy as well as technical research should be prioritized. We conclude that countries should adopt an equitable approach towards achieving UHC and, therefore, prioritize high-need groups and those requiring additional financial protection, in particular women and children. This constitutes the 'progressive universalism' advocated for by the 2013 Lancet Commission on Investing in Health.