Keeping health facilities safe: one way of strengthening the interaction between disease-specific programmes and health systems.

The debate on the interaction between disease-specific programmes and health system strengthening in the last few years has intensified as experts seek to tease out common ground and find solutions and synergies to bridge the divide. Unfortunately, the debate continues to be largely academic and devoid of specificity, resulting in the issues being irrelevant to health care workers on the ground. Taking the theme 'What would entice HIV- and tuberculosis (TB)-programme managers to sit around the table on a Monday morning with health system experts', this viewpoint focuses on infection control and health facility safety as an important and highly relevant practical topic for both disease-specific programmes and health system strengthening. Our attentions, and the examples and lessons we draw on, are largely aimed at sub-Saharan Africa where the great burden of TB and HIV ⁄ AIDS resides, although the principles we outline would apply to other parts of the world as well. Health care infections, caused for example by poor hand hygiene, inadequate testing of donated blood, unsafe disposal of needles and syringes, poorly sterilized medical and surgical equipment and lack of adequate airborne infection control procedures, are responsible for a considerable burden of illness amongst patients and health care personnel, especially in resource-poor countries. Effective infection control in a district hospital requires that all the components of a health system function well: governance and stewardship, financing,infrastructure, procurement and supply chain management, human resources, health information systems, service delivery and finally supervision. We argue in this article that proper attention to infection control and an emphasis on safe health facilities is a concrete first step towards strengthening the interaction between disease-specific programmes and health systems where it really matters – for patients who are sick and for the health care workforce who provide the care and treatment

Do existing research summaries on health systems match immunisation managers' needs in middle- and low-income countries? Analysis of GAVI health systems strengthening support

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The GAVI Alliance was created in 2000 to increase access to vaccines. More recently, GAVI has supported evidence-based health systems strengthening to overcome barriers to vaccination. Our objectives were: to explore countries' priorities for health systems strengthening; to describe published research summaries for each priority area in relation to their number, quality and relevance; and to describe the use of national data from surveys in identifying barriers to immunisation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From 44 health systems strengthening proposals submitted to GAVI in 2007 and 2008, we analysed the topics identified, the coverage of these topics by existing systematic reviews and the use of nation-wide surveys with vaccination data to justify the needs identified in the proposals.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty topics were identified and grouped into three thematic areas: health workforce (10 topics); organisation and management (14); and supply, distribution and maintenance (6). We found 51 potentially relevant systematic reviews, although for the topic that appeared most frequently in the proposals ('Health information systems') no review was identified. Thematic and geographic relevance were generally categorised as "high" in 33 (65%) and 25 (49%) reviews, respectively, but few reviews were categorised as "highly relevant for policy" (7 reviews, 14%). With regard to methodological quality, 14 reviews (27%) were categorised as "high".</p> <p>The number of topics that were addressed by at least one high quality systematic review was: seven of the 10 topics in the 'health workforce' thematic area; six of the 14 topics in the area of 'organisation and management'; and none of the topics in the thematic area of 'supply, distribution and maintenance'. Only twelve of the 39 countries with available national surveys referred to them in their proposals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Relevant, high quality research summaries were found for few of the topics identified by managers. Few proposals used national surveys evidence to identify barriers to vaccination. Researchers generating or adapting evidence about health systems need to be more responsive to managers' needs. Use of available evidence from local or national surveys should be strongly encouraged.</p

New vaccine introductions: assessing the impact and the opportunities for immunization and health systems strengthening.

In 2010, global immunization partners posed the question, "Do new vaccine introductions (NVIs) have positive or negative impacts on immunization and health systems of countries?" An Ad-hoc Working Group was formed for WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization (SAGE) to examine this question through five approaches: a published literature review, a grey literature review, in-depth interviews with regional and country immunization staff, in-depth studies of recent NVIs in 3 countries, and a statistical analysis of the impact of NVI on DTP3 coverage in 176 countries. The WHO Health System Framework of building blocks was used to organize the analysis of these data to assess potential areas of impact of NVI on health systems. In April 2012, the Ad-hoc Working Group presented its findings to SAGE. While reductions in disease burden and improvements in disease and adverse events surveillance, training, cold chain and logistics capacity and injection safety were commonly documented as beneficial impacts, opportunities for strengthening the broader health system were consistently missed during NVI. Weaknesses in planning for human and financial resource needs were highlighted as a concern. Where positive impacts on health systems following NVI occurred, these were often in areas where detailed technical guidance or tools and adequate financing were available. SAGE supported the Ad-hoc Working Group's conclusion that future NVI should explicitly plan to optimize and document the impact of NVI on broader health systems. Furthermore, opportunities for improving integration of delivery of immunization services, commodities, and messages with other parts of the health system should be actively sought with the recognition that integration is a bidirectional process. To avoid the gaps in planning for NVI that can compromise existing immunization and health systems, donors and partners should provide sufficient and timely support to facilitate country planning. Areas for future research were also identified. Finally, to support countries in using NVI as an opportunity to strengthen immunization and health systems, the WHO guidance for countries on new vaccine introduction is being updated to reflect ways this might be accomplished

The Health Systems Agenda: Prospects for the Diagonal Approach

The recent attention to health systems has reignited the debate on some of the dichotomies that have persisted for decades in the global health field: prevention versus treatment, primary versus specialized care, vertical versus horizontal strategies, and social determinants of health versus health services. This chapter provides a conceptual basis to advance the understanding of health systems. It helps settle the disputes between vertical and horizontal approaches in order to improve health through the construction of a “diagonal” perspective. The chapter talks about health systems, and revisits the debate around vertical and horizontal approaches to healthcare. It discusses the main features of the diagonal approach and exemplifies the use of this approach by addressing the issue of child mortality in Mexico. The chapter concludes with a brief reflection of the strengths and potential limits of the diagonal perspective