Cargando…

Health system governance following devolution: comparing experiences of decentralisation in Kenya and Indonesia

INTRODUCTION: Devolution reforms in Indonesia and Kenya have brought extensive changes to governance structures and mechanisms for financing and delivering healthcare. Community health approaches can contribute towards attaining many of devolution’s objectives, including community participation, res...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCollum, Rosalind, Limato, Ralalicia, Otiso, Lilian, Theobald, Sally, Taegtmeyer, Miriam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6169670/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30294460
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000939
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Devolution reforms in Indonesia and Kenya have brought extensive changes to governance structures and mechanisms for financing and delivering healthcare. Community health approaches can contribute towards attaining many of devolution’s objectives, including community participation, responsiveness, accountability and improved equity. We set out to examine governance in two countries at different stages in the devolution journey: Indonesia at 15 years postdevolution and Kenya at 3 years. METHODS: We collected qualitative data across multiple levels of the health system in one district in Indonesia and ten counties in Kenya, through 80 interviews and six focus group discussions (FGD) in Indonesia and 269 interviews and 14 FGDs in Kenya. Qualitative data were digitally recorded, transcribed and coded before thematic framework analysis. Common themes between contexts were identified inductively and deductively, and similarities and differences critically analysed during an inter-country analysis workshop. RESULTS: Following devolution both Indonesia and Kenya experienced similar challenges ensuring good governance for health. Devolution reforms transformed power relationships, increasing responsibilities at subnational levels and introducing opportunities for citizen participation. In both contexts, the impact of these mechanisms has been undermined by insufficiently clear guidance; failure to address pre-existing negative contextual norms and practices varied decision-maker values, limited priority-setting capacity and limited genuine community accountability. As a consequence, priorities in both contexts are too often placed on curative rather than preventive health services. CONCLUSION: We recommend consideration of increased intersectoral actions that address social determinants of health, challenge negative norms and practices and place emphasis on community-based primary health services.