Assessing access barriers to maternal health care: measuring bypassing to identify health centre needs in rural Uganda.

BACKGROUND: In low income countries, several barriers exist to the use of health services for child delivery, including distance, transportation, informal costs or low perceived quality. Yet there is rarely information about which barriers are more or less important to the use of a given health facility. This study assessed the relative importance of different barriers to maternal health facility use in rural Uganda through the use of simple indicators based on locally available data. METHODS: Data from public health facilities performing deliveries in a rural district were used along with census information to construct a set of indicators useful for diagnosing barriers to delivery service use. Indicators included the number of facility-based deliveries per 1000 women served, the proportion of users from a facility's local area, and a new indicator, the 'bypassing ratio', defined as the number of women from a facility's local area who delivered in other facilities, divided by the number of local women using the facility itself. RESULTS: Numbers of deliveries varied greatly between facilities of the same level. A few very low use facilities saw over 75% of women come from the local area, while other facilities services attracted a large majority of women from other areas. The phenomenon of bypassing provides additional insight into the relative importance of distance or transport as opposed to internal facility factors preventing use. CONCLUSIONS: Simple and easily replicable tools are essential to assist health managers to identify communities and facilities needing improvements in access to delivery care. The methods developed in this paper could be utilized by local officials in other areas to assist planning and improvement of both maternal care and other health services

Overcoming access barriers for facility-based delivery in low-income settings: insights from Bangladesh and Uganda.

Women in both Bangladesh and Uganda face a number of barriers to delivery in professional health facilities, including costs, transportation problems, and sociocultural norms to deliver at home. Some women in both the countries manage to overcome these barriers. This paper reports on a comparative qualitative study investigating how some women and their families were able to use professional delivery services. The study provides insights into the decision-making processes and overcoming access barriers. Husbands were found to be particularly important in Uganda, while, in Bangladesh, a number of individuals could influence care-seeking, including unqualified local healers or traditional birth attendants. In both the settings, cost and transport barriers were often overcome through social networks. Social prohibitions on birth in the health facility did not feature strongly in women's accounts, with several Ugandan women explaining that friends or peers also used facilities, while, in Bangladesh, perceived complications apparently justified the use of professional medical care. Investigating the ways in which some women can overcome common barriers can help inform policy and planning to increase the use of health facilities for child delivery

The making of evidence-informed health policy in Cambodia: knowledge, institutions, and processes

Introduction: In global health discussions, there have been widespread calls for health policy and programme implementation to be informed by the best available evidence. However, recommendations in the literature on knowledge translation are often decontextualized, with little attention to the local systems of institutions, structures, and practices which can direct the production of evidence and shape whether or how it informs health decisions. This article explores these issues in the country setting of Cambodia, where the Ministry of Health has explicitly championed the language of evidence-based approaches to policy and planning. Methods: Research for this paper combined multiple sources and material, including indepth interviews with key informants in Phnom Penh and the analysis of documentary material and publications. Data collection and analysis focused on two key domains in evidence advisory systems: domestic capacities to generate health-policy relevant evidence and institutional mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and incorporate evidence in the policy process. Results: We identified a number of structural arrangements that may increasingly work to facilitate the supply of health-related data and information, and their use to inform policy and planning. However, other trends and features appear to be more problematic, including gaps between research and public health priorities in the country, the fragmented nature of research activities and information systems, the lack of a national policy to support and guide the production and use of evidence for health policy, and challenges to the use of evidence for inter-sectoral policy making. Conclusions: In Cambodia, as in other low- and middle-income countries, continued investments to increase the supply and quality of health data and information are needed, but greater attention should be paid to the enabling institutional environment to ensure relevance of health research products and effective knowledge management

Innovative responses for preventing HIV transmission: The protective value of population-wide interruptions of risk activity.

Concurrent partnering contributes to high HIV prevalence. This is in part due to the natural history of the virus. After transmission, an individual’s viral load spikes in a period of ‘acute infection’ during which they are highly infectious. Models estimate that around 10 - 45% of HIV acquisition arises from sex with an individual in the acute infection period.&#x0D; If everyone in a population abstained from high-risk sex for a given period of time, in theory the viral loads of all recent seroconverters should pass through the acute infection period. When risk behaviour resumed there would be almost no individuals in the high-viraemic phase, thereby reducing infectivity, and HIV incidence would fall. &#x0D; Recurring population-wide shifts in risk behaviour are not unheard of. Many, in fact, occur as part of existing religious observances. The month of Ramadan in Muslim communities is perhaps one of the most obvious cases. Ramadan sees significant behaviour changes. In addition to fasting from sunrise to sunset, observant individuals abstain from coitus during daylight hours. There is anecdotal evidence that risky sexual behaviours are also significantly reduced over this period. In Indonesia, for instance, it was reported that research with sex workers was not possible during Ramadan because people ‘abstained from sex from one end of the month to the other … Many sex workers returned to home villages during this time.’ &#x0D; This article argues that a population-wide interruption of risk behaviour for a set period of time could reduce HIV incidence and make a significant contribution to prevention efforts. It calls for mathematical modelling of periodic risk behaviour interruptions, as well as encouragement of policy interventions to develop campaigns of this nature. A policy response, such as a ‘safe sex/no sex’ campaign in a cohesive population, deserves serious consideration as an HIV prevention intervention. In some contexts, periods of abstinence from risk behaviour could also be linked to existing religious practices to provide policy options.</jats:p

A social, not a natural science: engaging with broader fields in health policy analysis. Comment on “modelling the health policy process: one size fits all or horses for courses?”

Powell and Mannion's recent editorial discusses how different 'models' of the policy process have been applied within the health policy field. They present two ways forward for scholarship: more 'home grown' development of health-specific models, or deeper engagement with broader public policy scholarship. In this paper I argue for the latter approach for several reasons. First, health policy analysis is a social, not a natural science - and as such is not exceptional to other forms of policy scholarship. Second, many 'health policy models' are often grounded in conceptual work from elsewhere (or may not be health specific). Finally, there has been significant work to develop more nuanced understandings of theories, models, and frameworks available to particular analytical tasks and questions. As such, the growing body of global health policy scholarship may find it can benefit more from deeper engagement with existing conceptual work than constructing its own new models in most cases

The Politics of Evidence

The Open Access version of this book, available at http://www.tandfebooks.com/, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 3.0 license. There has been an enormous increase in interest in the use of evidence for public policymaking, but the vast majority of work on the subject has failed to engage with the political nature of decision making and how this influences the ways in which evidence will be used (or misused) within political areas. This book provides new insights into the nature of political bias with regards to evidence and critically considers what an ‘improved’ use of evidence would look like from a policymaking perspective. Part I describes the great potential for evidence to help achieve social goals, as well as the challenges raised by the political nature of policymaking. It explores the concern of evidence advocates that political interests drive the misuse or manipulation of evidence, as well as counter-concerns of critical policy scholars about how appeals to ‘evidence-based policy’ can depoliticise political debates. Both concerns reflect forms of bias – the first representing technical bias, whereby evidence use violates principles of scientific best practice, and the second representing issue bias in how appeals to evidence can shift political debates to particular questions or marginalise policy-relevant social concerns. Part II then draws on the fields of policy studies and cognitive psychology to understand the origins and mechanisms of both forms of bias in relation to political interests and values. It illustrates how such biases are not only common, but can be much more predictable once we recognise their origins and manifestations in policy arenas. Finally, Part III discusses ways to move forward for those seeking to improve the use of evidence in public policymaking. It explores what constitutes ‘good evidence for policy’, as well as the ‘good use of evidence’ within policy processes, and considers how to build evidence-advisory institutions that embed key principles of both scientific good practice and democratic representation. Taken as a whole, the approach promoted is termed the ‘good governance of evidence’ – a concept that represents the use of rigorous, systematic and technically valid pieces of evidence within decision-making processes that are representative of, and accountable to, populations served

Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide

Nutrition guideline development is traditionally seen as a mechanism by which evidence is used to inform policy decisions. However, applying evidence in policy is a decidedly complex and politically embedded process, with no single universally agreed-upon body of evidence on which to base decisions, and multiple social concerns to address. Rather than simply calling for "evidence-based policy," an alternative is to look at the governing features of the evidence use system and reflect on what constitutes improved evidence use from a range of explicitly identified normative concerns. This study evaluated the use of evidence within the Canada Food Guide policy process by applying concepts of the "good governance of evidence" - an approach that incorporates multiple normative principles of scientific and democratic best practice to consider the structure and functioning of evidence advisory systems. The findings indicated that institutionalizing a process for evidence use grounded in democratic and scientific principles can improve evidence use in nutrition policy making

What constitutes “good” evidence for public health and social policy-making? From hierarchies to appropriateness

Within public health, and increasingly other areas of social policy, there are widespread calls to increase or improve the use of evidence for policy-making. Often these calls rest on an assumption that increased evidence utilisation will be a more efficient or effective means of achieving social goals. Yet a clear elucidation of what can be considered ?good evidence? for policy is rarely articulated. Many of the current discussions of best practise in the health policy sector derive from the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement, embracing the ?hierarchy of evidence? that places experimental trials as pre-eminent in terms of methodological quality. However, a number of problems arise if these hierarchies are used to rank or prioritise policy relevance. Challenges in applying evidence hierarchies to policy questions arise from the fact that the EBM hierarchies rank evidence of intervention effect on a specified and limited number of outcomes. Previous authors have noted that evidence forms at the top of such hierarchies typically serve the needs and realities of clinical medicine, but not necessarily public policy. We build on past insights by applying three disciplinary perspectives from political science, the philosophy of science and the sociology of knowledge to illustrate the limitations of a single evidence hierarchy to guide health policy choices, while simultaneously providing new conceptualisations suited to achieve health sector goals. In doing so, we provide an alternative approach that re-frames ?good? evidence for health policy as a question of appropriateness. Rather than adhering to a single hierarchy of evidence to judge what constitutes ?good? evidence for policy, it is more useful to examine evidence through the lens of appropriateness. The form of evidence, the determination of relevant categories and variables, and the weight given to any piece of evidence, must suit the policy needs at hand. A more robust and critical examination of relevant and appropriate evidence can ensure that the best possible evidence of various forms is used to achieve health policy goals