15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Decentralization and health system performance – a focused review of dimensions, difficulties, and derivatives in India

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          One of the principal goals of any health care system is to improve health through the provision of clinical and public health services. Decentralization as a reform measure aims to improve inputs, management processes and health outcomes, and has political, administrative and financial connotations. It is argued that the robustness of a health system in achieving desirable outcomes is contingent upon the width and depth of ‘decision space’ at the local level. Studies have used different approaches to examine one or more facets of decentralization and its effect on health system functioning; however, lack of consensus on an acceptable framework is a critical gap in determining its quantum and quality. Theorists have resorted to concepts of ‘trust’, ‘convenience’ and ‘mutual benefits’ to explain, define and measure components of governance in health. In the emerging ‘continuum of health services’ model, the challenge lies in identifying variables of performance (fiscal allocation, autonomy at local level, perception of key stakeholders, service delivery outputs, etc.) through the prism of decentralization in the first place, and in establishing directed relationships among them.

          Methods

          This focused review paper conducted extensive web-based literature search, using PubMed and Google Scholar search engines. After screening of key words and study objectives, we retrieved 180 articles for next round of screening. One hundred and four full articles (three working papers and 101 published papers) were reviewed in totality. We attempted to summarize existing literature on decentralization and health systems performance, explain key concepts and essential variables, and develop a framework for further scientific scrutiny. Themes are presented in three separate segments of dimensions, difficulties and derivatives.

          Results

          Evaluation of local decision making and its effect on health system performance has been studied in a compartmentalized manner. There is sparse evidence about innovations attributable to decentralization. We observed that in India, there is very scant evaluative study on the subject. We didn’t come across a single study examining the perception and experiences of local decision makers about the opportunities and challenges they faced. The existing body of evidences may be inadequate to feed into sound policy making. The principles of management hinge on measurement of inputs, processes and outputs. In the conceptual framework we propose three levels of functions (health systems functions, management functions and measurement functions) being intricately related to inputs, processes and outputs. Each level of function encompasses essential elements derived from the synthesis of information gathered through literature review and non-participant observation. We observed that it is difficult to quantify characteristics of governance at institutional, system and individual levels except through proxy means.

          Conclusion

          There is an urgent need to sensitize governments and academia about how best more objective evaluation of ‘shared governance’ can be undertaken to benefit policy making. The future direction of enquiry should focus on context-specific evidence of its effect on the entire spectrum of health system, with special emphasis on efficiency, community participation, human resource management and quality of services.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring patients' trust in their primary care providers.

            Existing scales to measure trust in physicians have differing content and limited testing. To improve on these measures, a detailed conceptual model was constructed and a large item pool (n = 78) was generated following a detailed conceptual model and expert review. After pilot testing, the best-performing items were validated with a random national sample (n = 959) and a regional sample of HMO members (n =1,199). Various psychometric tests produced a 10-item unidimensional scale consistent with most aspects of the conceptual model. Compared with previous scales, the Wake Forest physician trust scale has a somewhat improved combination of internal consistency, variability, and discriminability. The scale is more strongly correlated with satisfaction, desire to remain with a physician, willingness to recommend to friends, and not seeking second opinions; it is less correlated with insurer trust, membership in managed care, and choice of physician. Correlations are equivalent with lack of disputes, length of relationship, and number of visits [corrected].
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing quality using administrative data.

              Administrative data result from administering health care delivery, enrolling members into health insurance plans, and reimbursing for services. The primary producers of administrative data are the federal government, state governments, and private health care insurers. Although the clinical content of administrative data includes only the demographic characteristics and diagnoses of patients and codes for procedures, these data are often used to evaluate the quality of health care. Administrative data are readily available, are inexpensive to acquire, are computer readable, and typically encompass large populations. They have identified startling practice variations across small geographic areas and-supported research about outcomes of care. Many hospital report cards (which compare patient mortality rates) and physician profiles (which compare resource consumption) are derived from administrative data. However, gaps in clinical information and the billing context compromise the ability to derive valid quality appraisals from administrative data. With some exceptions, administrative data allow limited insight into the quality of processes of care, errors of omission or commission, and the appropriateness of care. In addition, questions about the accuracy and completeness of administrative data abound. Current administrative data are probably most useful as screening tools that highlight areas in which quality should be investigated in greater depth. The growing availability of electronic clinical information will change the nature of administrative data in the future, enhancing opportunities for quality measurement.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                bhuputra.panda@iiphb.org
                harshad@tiss.edu
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                31 October 2016
                31 October 2016
                2016
                : 16
                Issue : Suppl 6 Issue sponsor : This research and its publication were supported by a Wellcome Trust Capacity Strengthening Strategic Award to the Public Health Foundation of India and a Consortium of UK Universities. The articles have undergone the journal's standard peer review process for supplements. The Supplement Editor declares that he has no competing interests.
                : 1-14
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Public Health Foundation of India, IIPH-Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
                [2 ]School of Health Systems Studies, TISS, Mumbai, India
                Article
                1784
                10.1186/s12913-016-1784-9
                5103245
                28185593
                98cde578-229b-41d1-8b7f-0ad0a52779cc
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

                History
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Health & Social care
                health system performance,focused review,decentralization,dimensions,difficulties,derivatives,efficiency,india,odisha

                Comments

                Comment on this article