Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorKumar, Meghan Bruce
dc.contributor.authorTaegtmeyer, Miriam
dc.contributor.authorMadan, Jason
dc.contributor.authorNdima, Sozinho
dc.contributor.authorChikaphupha, Kingsley
dc.contributor.authorKea, Aschenaki Zerihun
dc.contributor.authorBarasa, Edwine
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-15T09:46:44Z
dc.date.available2021-07-15T09:46:44Z
dc.date.created2020-09-25T12:28:52Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn0268-1080
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2764491
dc.description.abstractVarious investments could help countries deliver on the universal health coverage (UHC) goals set by the global community; community health is a pillar of many national strategies towards UHC. Yet despite resource mobilization towards this end, little is known about the potential costs and value of these investments, as well as how evidence on the same would be used in related decisions. This qualitative study was conducted to understand the use of evidence in policy and financing decisions for large-scale community health programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Through key informant interviews with 43 respondents in countries with community health embedded in national UHC strategies (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique) and at global institutions, we investigated evidence use in community health financing and policy decision-making, as well as evidentiary needs related to community health data for decision-making. We found that evidence use is limited at all levels, in part due to a perceived lack of high-quality, relevant evidence. This perception stems from two main areas: first, desire for local evidence that reflects the context, and second, much existing economic evidence does not deal with what decision-makers value when it comes to community health systems—i.e. coverage and (to a lesser extent) quality. Beyond the evidence gap, there is limited capacity to assess and use the evidence. Elected officials also face political challenges to disinvestment as well as structural obstacles to evidence use, including the outsized influence of donor priorities. Evaluation data must to speak to decision-maker interests and constraints more directly, alongside financiers of community health providing explicit guidance and support on the role of evidence use in decision-making, empowering national decision-makers. Improved data quality, increased relevance of evidence and capacity for evidence use can drive improved efficiency of financing and evidence-based policymaking.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleHow do decision-makers use evidence in community health policy and financing decisions? A qualitative study and conceptual framework in four African countriesen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright the authors 2020en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/heapol/czaa027
dc.identifier.cristin1833422
dc.source.journalHealth Policy and Planningen_US
dc.source.pagenumber799-809en_US
dc.identifier.citationHealth Policy and Planning. 2020, 35 (7), 799-809.en_US
dc.source.volume35en_US
dc.source.issue7en_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal