Cargando…

Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda

BACKGROUND: Several countries in Sub Saharan Africa have abolished user fees for health care but the extent to which such a policy decision is guided by evidence needs further exploration. We explored the barriers and facilitating factors to uptake of evidence in the process of user fee abolition in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nabyonga-Orem, Juliet, Ssengooba, Freddie, Mijumbi, Rhona, Kirunga Tashobya, Christine, Marchal, Bruno, Criel, Bart
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25560092
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0639-5
_version_ 1782354821631705088
author Nabyonga-Orem, Juliet
Ssengooba, Freddie
Mijumbi, Rhona
Kirunga Tashobya, Christine
Marchal, Bruno
Criel, Bart
author_facet Nabyonga-Orem, Juliet
Ssengooba, Freddie
Mijumbi, Rhona
Kirunga Tashobya, Christine
Marchal, Bruno
Criel, Bart
author_sort Nabyonga-Orem, Juliet
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Several countries in Sub Saharan Africa have abolished user fees for health care but the extent to which such a policy decision is guided by evidence needs further exploration. We explored the barriers and facilitating factors to uptake of evidence in the process of user fee abolition in Uganda and how the context and stakeholders involved shaped the uptake of evidence. This study builds on previous work in Uganda that led to the development of a middle range theory (MRT) outlining the main facilitating factors for knowledge translation (KT). Application of the MRT to the case of abolition of user fees contributes to its refining. METHODS: Employing a theory-driven inquiry and case study approach given the need for in-depth investigation, we reviewed documents and conducted interviews with 32 purposefully selected key informants. We assessed whether evidence was available, had or had not been considered in policy development and the reasons why and; assessed how the actors and the context shaped the uptake of evidence. RESULTS: Symbolic, conceptual and instrumental uses of evidence were manifest. Different actors were influenced by different types of evidence. While technocrats in the ministry of health (MoH) relied on formal research, politicians relied on community complaints. The capacity of the MoH to lead the KT process was weak and the partnerships for KT were informal. The political window and alignment of the evidence with overall government discourse enhanced uptake of evidence. Stakeholders were divided, seemed to be polarized for various reasons and had varying levels of support and influence impacting the uptake of evidence. CONCLUSION: Evidence will be taken up in policy development in instances where the MoH leads the KT process, there are partnerships for KT in place, and the overall government policy and the political situation can be expected to play a role. Different actors will be influenced by different types of evidence and their level of support and influence will impact the uptake of evidence. In addition, the extent to which a policy issue is contested and, whether stakeholders share similar opinions and preferences will impact the uptake of evidence. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0639-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4310169
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43101692015-01-30 Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda Nabyonga-Orem, Juliet Ssengooba, Freddie Mijumbi, Rhona Kirunga Tashobya, Christine Marchal, Bruno Criel, Bart BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Several countries in Sub Saharan Africa have abolished user fees for health care but the extent to which such a policy decision is guided by evidence needs further exploration. We explored the barriers and facilitating factors to uptake of evidence in the process of user fee abolition in Uganda and how the context and stakeholders involved shaped the uptake of evidence. This study builds on previous work in Uganda that led to the development of a middle range theory (MRT) outlining the main facilitating factors for knowledge translation (KT). Application of the MRT to the case of abolition of user fees contributes to its refining. METHODS: Employing a theory-driven inquiry and case study approach given the need for in-depth investigation, we reviewed documents and conducted interviews with 32 purposefully selected key informants. We assessed whether evidence was available, had or had not been considered in policy development and the reasons why and; assessed how the actors and the context shaped the uptake of evidence. RESULTS: Symbolic, conceptual and instrumental uses of evidence were manifest. Different actors were influenced by different types of evidence. While technocrats in the ministry of health (MoH) relied on formal research, politicians relied on community complaints. The capacity of the MoH to lead the KT process was weak and the partnerships for KT were informal. The political window and alignment of the evidence with overall government discourse enhanced uptake of evidence. Stakeholders were divided, seemed to be polarized for various reasons and had varying levels of support and influence impacting the uptake of evidence. CONCLUSION: Evidence will be taken up in policy development in instances where the MoH leads the KT process, there are partnerships for KT in place, and the overall government policy and the political situation can be expected to play a role. Different actors will be influenced by different types of evidence and their level of support and influence will impact the uptake of evidence. In addition, the extent to which a policy issue is contested and, whether stakeholders share similar opinions and preferences will impact the uptake of evidence. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0639-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4310169/ /pubmed/25560092 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0639-5 Text en © Nabyonga-Orem et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nabyonga-Orem, Juliet
Ssengooba, Freddie
Mijumbi, Rhona
Kirunga Tashobya, Christine
Marchal, Bruno
Criel, Bart
Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda
title Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda
title_full Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda
title_fullStr Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda
title_full_unstemmed Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda
title_short Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda
title_sort uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in uganda
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25560092
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0639-5
work_keys_str_mv AT nabyongaoremjuliet uptakeofevidenceinpolicydevelopmentthecaseofuserfeesforhealthcareinpublichealthfacilitiesinuganda
AT ssengoobafreddie uptakeofevidenceinpolicydevelopmentthecaseofuserfeesforhealthcareinpublichealthfacilitiesinuganda
AT mijumbirhona uptakeofevidenceinpolicydevelopmentthecaseofuserfeesforhealthcareinpublichealthfacilitiesinuganda
AT kirungatashobyachristine uptakeofevidenceinpolicydevelopmentthecaseofuserfeesforhealthcareinpublichealthfacilitiesinuganda
AT marchalbruno uptakeofevidenceinpolicydevelopmentthecaseofuserfeesforhealthcareinpublichealthfacilitiesinuganda
AT crielbart uptakeofevidenceinpolicydevelopmentthecaseofuserfeesforhealthcareinpublichealthfacilitiesinuganda