Kerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201Universal Access to Healthcare: The Case of South Africa in the Comparative Global Context of the Late Anthropocene Era4954376710.34172/ijhpm.2020.28ENSolomonBenatarUniversity of Cape Town, Cape Town, South AfricaDalla Lana School of
Pubic Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CanadaStephenGillPolitical Science,
Communications and Culture, York University, Toronto, ON, CanadaJournal Article20191120<span class="fontstyle0">Much current global debate – as well as a great deal of political rhetoric – about global health and healthcare is characterised by a renewed emphasis on the goal of universal access throughout the world. While this goal has been achieved to varying extents in the United Kingdom, Canada and many countries in Europe, even within those countries where national health systems have long been in place, the pervasive shift in emphasis from health as a social value to health as a commodity within a capitalist market civilization is eroding the commitment to equitable access to healthcare. Against this background the challenge is much greater in low- and middle-income countries that lag behind – especially if aspirations to universal access go beyond primary care. The challenges of achieving greater equity in access to health and in health outcomes, in a middle-income country like South Africa, illustrate the magnitude of the tensions and gaps that need to be traversed, given the vast differences between healthcare provided in the private and public sectors. Understandably the concept of National Health Insurance (NHI) in South Africa has widespread support. The strategies for how a successful and effective NHI could be implemented, over what time-frame and what it covers are, however, very controversial issues. What tends to be ignored is that sustainable improvement in health in South Africa, and elsewhere, is not determined merely by medical care but more especially by social structures intimately linked to deeply entrenched local and global social, economic and political forces and inequalities. While seldom openly addressed, some of these forces are explicated in this article to supplement views elsewhere, although most have elided emphasis on the pervasive effects of the global political economy on the provisioning and practising of health and healthcare everywhere on our planet.</span>https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3767_24e8de922071b7cfa417baf4f53f36ac.pdfKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201Is a Decentralised Health Policy Associated With Better Self-rated Health and Health Services Evaluation? A Comparative Study of European Countries5566376210.34172/ijhpm.2020.13ENPål E.MartinussenDepartment of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway0000-0003-2280-5152Håvard T.RydlandDepartment of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway0000-0002-8039-3179Journal Article20190705<span class="fontstyle0">Background</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">While decentralisation has come to be a major policy strategy in many healthcare systems, there is still insufficient evidence about its impact. Most studies have been of developing countries, and they have provided mixed results. This study is the first to test the relevance of political decentralisation across European countries, thus meeting the demand for more studies of decentralisation in developed countries, and building on an indicator of decentralisation reflecting the allocation of authority for both health policy tasks and health policy areas.<br /></span><br /> <br /> <span class="fontstyle0">Methods</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">As indicators of health system outcome, we employed 2 measures that have not previously been investigated in the context of decentralisation: self-rated health and satisfaction with healthcare system. Using multilevel modelling and controlling for individual-level demographic and socioeconomic variables, the paper utilised the 2014 (7th) and 2016 (8th) round of the European Social Survey (ESS), including more than 70 000 individuals from 20 countries.<br /></span><br /> <br /> <span class="fontstyle0">Results</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">The results suggest that decentralisation has a positive and significant association with health system satisfaction, but not with self-rated health. Of the different operationalisations, decentralised healthcare provision had the strongest association with health system satisfaction.<br /></span><br /> <br /> <span class="fontstyle0">Conclusions</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">Our study fails to provide clear support for decentralised health systems. There is a need for more research on the impact of such reforms in order to provide policy-makers with knowledge of desirable governance, organisational designs, management and incentives in healthcare.</span>https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3762_aa43877092142762c2ede2519053490d.pdfKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201Promoting Intersectoral Collaboration Through the Evaluations of Public Health Interventions: Insights From Key Informants in 6 European Countries6776376510.34172/ijhpm.2020.19ENSabrinaKriegnerOslo Group on Global Health Policy, Department of Community Medicine and
Global Health and Centre for Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway0000-0001-6899-4994TrygveOttersenOslo Group on Global Health Policy, Department of Community Medicine and
Global Health and Centre for Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, NorwayDivision for Health
Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, NorwayJohn-ArneRøttingenResearch
Council of Norway, Oslo, NorwayUnniGopinathanOslo Group on Global Health Policy, Department of Community Medicine and
Global Health and Centre for Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, NorwayDivision for Health
Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway0000-0002-7145-1461Journal Article20190208<span class="fontstyle0">Background</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">Intersectoral collaboration is critical to the successful implementation of many public health interventions (PHIs). Little attention has been paid to whether and how processes at the stage of evaluation can promote intersectoral collaboration. The objective of this study was to examine European experiences and views on whether and how the evaluation of PHIs promote intersectoral collaboration.<br /></span><br /> <br /> <span class="fontstyle0">Methods</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">A qualitative study design was used. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 individuals centrally involved in the evaluation of PHIs in 6 European countries (Austria, Denmark, England, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland). Questions pertained to current processes for evaluating PHIs in the country and current and potential strategies for promoting intersectoral collaboration. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key themes responding to our primary objective.<br /></span><br /> <br /> <span class="fontstyle0">Results</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">Experiences with promoting intersectoral collaboration through the evaluation of PHIs could be summarized in 4 themes: (1) Early involvement of non-health sectors in the evaluative process and inclusion of non-health benefits can promote intersectoral collaboration, but should be combined with greater influence of these sectors in shaping PHIs; (2) Harmonization of methodological approaches may enable comparison of results and facilitate intersectoral collaboration, but should not be an overriding goal; (3) Involvement in health impact assessments (HIAs) can promote intersectoral collaboration, but needs to be incentivized and be conducted without putting overwhelming demands on non-health sectors; (4) A designated body for evaluating PHIs may promote intersectoral collaboration, but its design needs to take account of realities of policy-making.<br /></span><br /> <br /> <span class="fontstyle0">Conclusion</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">The full potential for promoting intersectoral collaboration through the evaluation of PHIs appears currently unrealized in the settings we studied. To further promote intersectoral collaboration, evaluators and decisionmakers may consider the full range of strategies characterized in this study. This may be most effective if the strategies are deployed so that they reinforce each other, value outcomes beyond health, and are tailored to maximize political priority for PHIs across sectors.</span>https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3765_40a53106d4bc380cd64377ef2002ab5a.pdfKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201How Do Nigerian Newspapers Report Corruption in the Health System?7785377710.34172/ijhpm.2020.37ENMohammedAbba-AjiFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK0000-0002-0395-4446DinaBalabanovaFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK0000-0001-7163-3428EleanorHutchinsonFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK0000-0002-9718-2407MartinMcKeeFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK0000-0002-0121-9683Journal Article20190825<span class="fontstyle0">Background</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">Nigeria has a huge burden of corruption, with the health system especially vulnerable. The media can play a role in tackling it, by shaping the narrative around it. However, its influence depends on the extent and framing of its reporting on corruption. This paper reviews, for the first time, coverage of corruption in the health system in the Nigerian print media.<br /></span><br /> <br /> <span class="fontstyle0">Methods</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">The top 10, by circulation, newspapers in Nigeria were selected and searched using the LexisNexis database for articles covering corruption in the health sector over a 2-year period (2016–2018). Two newspapers are not included in the database and were searched manually. 135 articles were identified and subject to content and framing analyses.<br /></span><br /> <br /> <span class="fontstyle0">Results</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">The Punch newspaper had the highest number of publications focussed on corruption in the health sector. The National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) was the organization attracting most coverage, followed by the Federal Ministry of Health. Corruption in the health sector was predominantly framed as a political issue. Most coverage was episodic, focused on the details of the particular case, with much less thematic, delving into underlying causes. Corruption was most often attributed to a lack of accountability while enforcement was the most frequent solution proffered.<br /></span><br /> <br /> <span class="fontstyle0">Conclusion</span><br /> <span class="fontstyle2">This study highlights the potential role of media analyses in helping to understand how newspapers cover corruption in the health sector in Nigeria. It argues that the media has the potential to act as an agent of change for tackling corruption within the health sector.</span>https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3777_bb52828d7c6500080db22007fb79f76f.pdfKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201Reimagining Researchers in Health Research; Comment on “Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering With University-Based Researchers in Canada: A Call to ‘Re-Imagine’ Research”8689374210.15171/ijhpm.2020.05ENKatrina M.PlamondonSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Development, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada0000-0002-2817-0621Journal Article20191108<span class="fontstyle0">It is widely accepted that research evidence should inform policy and practice in health service organizations. Yet, amid increasingly complex and even wicked realities, where health inequities prevail and resource-strained health service organizations struggle to keep pace with demand, </span><em><span class="fontstyle2">using </span></em><span class="fontstyle0">research to inform practice and policy remains an elusive ideal. Bowen and colleagues’ study illuminates critical relational pathways for engagement in evidence-informed practice and decision-making and suggests beginning insights into what might contribute to the tenuousness of this aspirational ideal. But what </span><em><span class="fontstyle2">kind </span></em><span class="fontstyle0">of reimagination is needed to move toward more genuine engagement in research? This commentary argues for reimagining the </span><em><span class="fontstyle2">relationship between researchers and health research</span></em><span class="fontstyle0">, positioning researchers as responsive, guided by humility, and part of a greater collective effort to advance a public good. It challenges notions of objectivity and detached expertise, suggesting that researchers embrace an active practice of </span><em><span class="fontstyle2">humility </span></em><span class="fontstyle0">focused on approaching research in service and from a position of learning rather than knowing.</span>https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3742_819bfa77e249a691e1cb518da311f0f3.pdfKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201What Can Health Services Researchers Offer Health Systems? Developing Meaningful Partnerships Between Academics and Health System Workers; Comment on “Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering with University-Based Researchers in Canada - A Call to ‘Re-imagine’ Research”9092374510.15171/ijhpm.2020.07ENKateChurrucaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia0000-0002-9923-3116Louise A.EllisAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia0000-0001-6902-4578Janet C.LongAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia0000-0002-0553-682XJeffreyBraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia0000-0003-0296-4957Journal Article20191114<span class="fontstyle0">As healthcare researchers, we know very well our own experiences on the challenges of partnering with those in the health system to do collaborative, internationally-regarded studies aiming for impact. Bowen and colleagues’ study in Canada empirically examines these issues from the other side, interviewing health system leaders about their perspectives of us researchers, research collaborations and the challenges and opportunities these pose. Based on their findings, they propose a need to re-imagine the contours of research. Inspired by that, in this commentary we examine the context for research partnerships and consider some of the emerging models for fostering more meaningful collaborations between researchers and those working in healthcare systems and organisations. Based on principles of embedded research and researchers, these models—including translational research networks (TRNs) and researcher-in-residence models—rely on a complex interplay of personal and interpersonal factors to be successful.</span>https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3745_e58f393d5e319a2ff8b2f368f8c9155c.pdfKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201Building Research Capacity for Impact in Applied Health Services Research Partnerships; Comment on “Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering With University-Based Researchers in Canada – A Call to “Re-imagine” Research”9397375110.15171/ijhpm.2020.11ENJoCookeNIHR Collaboration and Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Yorkshire and Humber (CLAHRC YH), Sheffield, UKSheffield
Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK0000-0002-9629-0545Journal Article20191123<span class="fontstyle0">Bowen and colleagues ask us to re-imagine how to conduct research in academic-practice partnerships, and to develop capacity in the applied research </span><span class="fontstyle2">and </span><span class="fontstyle0">health workforce to do this. This commentary reinforces their messages, and describes a framework of research capacity development for impact (RCDi) which emphasizes active and continuous experiential learning within research partnerships. The RCDi framework includes the need to focus on multiple levels in the collaboration architecture, and describes principles of working that aims to increase impact on services, and learning opportunities for all partners.</span>https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3751_44d968155040a6b9b77e154d0ca58fdd.pdfKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201The Potential for Early Health Economic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment and Reimbursement Decision-Making; Comment on “Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling”98101375310.15171/ijhpm.2020.17ENHansooKimSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne,
VIC, Australia0000-0002-3710-8619StephenGoodallCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University
of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, AustraliaDannyLiewSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne,
VIC, AustraliaJournal Article20191028<span class="fontstyle0">Grutters et al recently investigated the role of early health economic modelling of health technologies by undertaking a secondary analysis of health economic modelling assessments performed by their group. Our commentary offers a broad perspective on the potential utility of early health economic modelling to inform health technology assessment (HTA) and decision-making around reimbursement of new health technologies. Further we provide several examples to compliment Grutters and colleagues’ observations.</span>https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3753_8da4b9b34ddea7c70f241f380ec6fb4e.pdfKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201Expanding the Role of Early Health Economic Modelling in Evaluation of Health Technologies; Comment on “Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling”102105375410.15171/ijhpm.2020.18ENCarloFedericiCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), SDA
Bocconi School of Management, Bocconi University, Milan, ItalyUniversity of
Warwick, School of Engineering, Coventry, UK0000-0002-0309-4669AleksandraTorbicaCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), SDA
Bocconi School of Management, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy0000-0001-8938-7608Journal Article20191110<span class="fontstyle0">In this commentary, we discuss early stage assessments of innovative medical technologies both in terms of methods applied as well as their use in healthcare decision-making. We argue that cost-effectiveness alone may be too reductive if taken as the only decision rule, and it would benefit from being used within a broader evaluation framework. We discuss innovative methods which may contribute to better estimate the potential costs and consequences of a technology in the absence of solid clinical data, as frequently the case in early assessments. Finally, we comment on the potential synergies which may take place should early economic models be used not only by technology developers alone but as a negotiating base during early dialogues with health technology assessment (HTA) bodies.</span>https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3754_332836c949ea3c863a4a475596838bd5.pdfKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201Advancing Health Services Collaborative and Partnership Research; Comment on “Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering with University-Based Researchers in Canada – A Call to ‘Re-imagine’ Research”106110375510.15171/ijhpm.2020.16ENMonica E.NyströmDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Medical
Management Centre, SOLIID, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, SwedenDepartment of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå,
Sweden0000-0003-2281-4622HelenaStrehlenertDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Medical
Management Centre, SOLIID, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, SwedenStockholm Gerontology Research Centre, Stockholm, Sweden0000-0002-4399-5592Journal Article20191114<span class="fontstyle0">Bowen et al highlight the trend towards partnership research to address the complex challenges currently facing healthcare systems and organizations world-wide. They focus on important strategic actors in partner organizations and their experiences, views and advice for sustainable collaboration, within a Canadian context. The authors call for a multi-system change to provide better conditions for research partnerships. They highlight needs to re-imagine research, to move beyond an ‘acute care’ and clinical focus in research, to re-think research funding, and to improve the academic preparation for research partnerships. In this commentary we provide input to the discussion on practical guidance for those involved in research partnerships based on our partnership experiences from ten research projects conducted within the Swedish healthcare system since 2007. We also highlight areas that need attention in future research in order to learn from approaches used for collaborative and partnership research.</span>https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3755_7fc16706f3be94454ba1c77ba91dfeab.pdfKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-593910220210201Destination Impact! The Many Roads to Influencing Health System Change: A Response to Recent Commentaries111112381610.34172/ijhpm.2020.77ENMarkEmbrettHealth Program, Faculty of Arts and Science, St. Francis Xavier University,
Antigonish, NS, CanadaNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada0000-0002-3969-0219S MeaghanSimHealthy Populations Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, CanadaNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada0000-0003-4477-3833KatieAubrechtDepartment of Sociology, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS,
CanadaIvyChengDivision of Emergency Medicine (DOM), University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, CanadaSunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, ON,
CanadaJonathanLaiCanadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance (CASDA), Toronto, ON,
Canada0000-0002-3060-1232RebeccaLiuWomen’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems and Virtual
Care, Toronto, ON, CanadaDalla Lana School of Public Health, University
of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CanadaSamiratouOuedraogoDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics
and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, QC, CanadaInstitut
National de Santé Publique du Québec (INSPQ), Montréal, QC, CanadaMargaretSaariSE
Health, Markham, ON, CanadaJournal Article20200516https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3816_d230b37eacb27f99f7a144029ee68e44.pdf