Browsing by Author "Chandiwana, Pamela"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How do health workers experience and cope with shocks? Learning from four fragile and conflict-affected health systems in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and Cambodia
    (Health Policy and Planning, 2017) Witter, Sophie; Wurie, Haja; Chandiwana, Pamela; Namakula, Justine; Alonso-Garbayo, Alvaro; Ssengooba, Freddie; Raven, Joanna; So, Sovannarith
    This article is grounded in a research programme which set out to understand how to rebuild health systems post-conflict. Four countries were studied—Uganda, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and Cambodia—which were at different distances from conflict and crisis, as well as having unique conflict stories. During the research process, the Ebola epidemic broke out in West Africa. Zimbabwe has continued to face a profound economic crisis. Within our research on health worker incentives, we captured insights from 128 life histories and in-depth interviews with a variety of staff that had remained in service. This article aims to draw together lessons from these contexts which can provide lessons for enhancing staff and therefore health system resilience in future, especially in similarly fragile and conflict-affected contexts. We examine the reported effects, both personal and professional, of the three different types of shock (conflicts, epidemics and prolonged political-economic crises), and how staff coped. We find that the impact of shocks and coping strategies are similar between conflict/post-conflict and epidemic contexts—particularly in relation to physical threats and psychosocial threats—while all three contexts create challenges and staff responses for working conditions and remuneration. Health staff showed considerable inventiveness and resilience, and also benefited from external assistance of various kinds, but there are important gaps which point to ways in which they should be better protected and supported in the future. Health systems are increasingly fragile and conflict-prone, and shocks are often prolonged or repeated. Resilience should not be taken for granted or used as an excuse for abandoning frontline health staff. Strategies should be in place at local, national and international levels to prepare for predictable crises of various sorts, rather than waiting for them to occur and responding belatedly, or relying on personal sacrifices by staff to keep services functioning.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    (How) does RBF strengthen strategic purchasing of health care? Comparing the experience of Uganda, Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
    (Global Health Research and Policy, 2019) Witter, Sophie; Bertone, Maria P.; Namakula, Justine; Chandiwana, Pamela; Chirwa, Yotamu; Ssennyonjo, Aloysius; Ssengooba, Freddie
    Results-Based Financing (RBF) has proliferated in health sectors of low and middle income countries, especially fragile and conflict-affected ones, and has been presented as a way of reforming and strengthening strategic purchasing. However, few studies have empirically examined how RBF impacts on health care purchasing in these settings. This article examines the effects of several RBF programmes on health care purchasing functions in three fragile and post-conflict settings: Uganda, Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) over the past decade. Methods: The article is based on a documentary review, including 110 documents from 2004 to 2018, and 98 key informant (KI) interviews conducted with international, national and district level stakeholders in early 2018 in the selected districts of the three countries. Interviews and analysis followed an adapted framework for strategic purchasing, which was also used to compare across the case studies. Results: Across the cases, at the government level, we find little change to the accountability of purchasers, but RBF does mobilise additional resources to support entitlements. In relation to the population, RBF appears to bring in improvements in specifying and informing about entitlements for some services. However, the engagement and consultation with the population on their needs was found to be limited. In relation to providers, RBF did not impact in any major way on provider accreditation and selection, or on treatment guidelines. However, it did introduce a more contractual relationship for some providers and bring about (at least partial) improvements in provider payment systems, data quality, increased financial autonomy for primary providers and enforcing equitable strategies. More generally, RBF has been a source of much-needed revenue at primary care level in under-funded health systems. The context – particularly the degree of stability and authority of government–, the design of the RBF programme and the potential for effective integration of RBF in existing systems and its stage of development were key factors behind differences observed.