| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Albin, Björn, 1951-, et al.
(author)
-
Health Care Systems in Sweden and China : Legal and formal organisational aspects
- 2010
-
In: Health Research Policy and Systems. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1478-4505. ; 8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIM: To describe and compare health care in Sweden and China with regard to legislation, organisation, and finance.METHODS: Literature review in Sweden and China to identify literature published from 1985 to 2008 using the same keywords. References in recent studies were scrutinized, national legislation and regulations and government reports were searched, and textbooks were searched manually.RESULTS: The health care systems in Sweden and China show dissimilarities in legislation, organisation, and finance. In Sweden there is one national law concerning health care while in China the law includes the "Hygienic Common Law" and the "Fundamental Health Law" which is under development. There is a tendency towards market-orientated solutions in both countries. Sweden has a well-developed primary health care system while the primary health care system in China is still under development and relies predominantly on hospital-based care concentrated in cities.CONCLUSION: Despite differences in health care systems, Sweden and China have similar basic assumptions, i.e. to combine managerial-organisational efficiency with the humanitarian-egalitarian goals of health care, and both strive to provide better care for all.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Byskov, Jens, et al.
(author)
-
Accountable priority setting for trust in health systems : the need for research into a new approach for strengthening sustainable health action in developing countries
- 2009
-
In: Health Research Policy and Systems. - : BioMed Central. - 1478-4505. ; 7, s. 23-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Despite multiple efforts to strengthen health systems in low and middle income countries, intended sustainable improvements in health outcomes have not been shown. To date most priority setting initiatives in health systems have mainly focused on technical approaches involving information derived from burden of disease statistics, cost effectiveness analysis, and published clinical trials. However, priority setting involves value-laden choices and these technical approaches do not equip decision-makers to address a broader range of relevant values - such as trust, equity, accountability and fairness - that are of concern to other partners and, not least, the populations concerned. A new focus for priority setting is needed. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an explicit ethical framework for legitimate and fair priority setting that provides guidance for decision-makers who must identify and consider the full range of relevant values. AFR consists of four conditions: i) relevance to the local setting, decided by agreed criteria; ii) publicizing priority-setting decisions and the reasons behind them; iii) the establishment of revisions/appeal mechanisms for challenging and revising decisions; iv) the provision of leadership to ensure that the first three conditions are met. REACT - "REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems" is an EU-funded five-year intervention study started in 2006, which is testing the application and effects of the AFR approach in one district each in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. The objectives of REACT are to describe and evaluate district-level priority setting, to develop and implement improvement strategies guided by AFR and to measure their effect on quality, equity and trust indicators. Effects are monitored within selected disease and programme interventions and services and within human resources and health systems management. Qualitative and quantitative methods are being applied in an action research framework to examine the potential of AFR to support sustainable improvements to health systems performance. This paper reports on the project design and progress and argues that there is a high need for research into legitimate and fair priority setting to improve the knowledge base for achieving sustainable improvements in health outcomes.
|
|
| 5. |
- Byskov, Jens, et al.
(author)
-
The accountability for reasonableness approach to guide priority setting in health systems within limited resources : findings from action research at district level in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia
- 2014
-
In: Health Research Policy and Systems. - : BioMed Central. - 1478-4505. ; 12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Priority-setting decisions are based on an important, but not sufficient set of values and thus lead to disagreement on priorities. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an ethics-based approach to a legitimate and fair priority-setting process that builds upon four conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement, which facilitate agreement on priority-setting decisions and gain support for their implementation. This paper focuses on the assessment of AFR within the project REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems (REACT). Methods: This intervention study applied an action research methodology to assess implementation of AFR in one district in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia, respectively. The assessments focused on selected disease, program, and managerial areas. An implementing action research team of core health team members and supporting researchers was formed to implement, and continually assess and improve the application of the four conditions. Researchers evaluated the intervention using qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. Results: The values underlying the AFR approach were in all three districts well-aligned with general values expressed by both service providers and community representatives. There was some variation in the interpretations and actual use of the AFR in the decision-making processes in the three districts, and its effect ranged from an increase in awareness of the importance of fairness to a broadened engagement of health team members and other stakeholders in priority setting and other decision-making processes. Conclusions: District stakeholders were able to take greater charge of closing the gap between nationally set planning and the local realities and demands of the served communities within the limited resources at hand. This study thus indicates that the operationalization of the four broadly defined and linked conditions is both possible and seems to be responding to an actual demand. This provides arguments for the continued application and further assessment of the potential of AFR in supporting priority-setting and other decision-making processes in health systems to achieve better agreed and more sustainable health improvements linked to a mutual democratic learning with potential wider implications.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Leufvén, Mia, et al.
(author)
-
Dimensions of Learning Organizations Questionnaire (DLOQ) in a low-resource health care setting in Nepal
- 2015
-
In: Health Research Policy and Systems. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1478-4505. ; 13:1, s. 6-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND:Knowledge-based organizations, such as health care systems, need to be adaptive to change and able to facilitate uptake of new evidence. To be able to assess organizational capability to learn is therefore an important part of health systems strengthening. The aim of the present study is to assess context using the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) in a low-resource health setting in Nepal.METHODS:DLOQ was translated and administered to 230 employees at all levels of the hospital. Data was analyzed using non-parametric tests.RESULTS:The DLOQ was able to detect variations across employee's perceptions of the organizational context. Nurses scored significantly lower than doctors on the dimension "Empowerment" while doctors scored lower than nurses on "Strategic leadership". These results suggest that the hospital's organization carries attributes of a centralized, hierarchical structure that might hinder a progress towards a learning organization.CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates that, despite the designing and developing of the DLOQ in the USA and its main utilization in company settings, it can be used and applied in hospital settings in low-income countries. The application of DLOQ provides valuable insights and understanding when designing and evaluating efforts for healthcare improvement.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Reveiz, Ludovic, et al.
(author)
-
Prioritization strategies in clinical practice guidelines development : a pilot study
- 2010
-
In: Health Research Policy and Systems. - : BioMed Central. - 1478-4505. ; 8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Few methodological studies address the prioritization of clinical topics for the development of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). The aim of this study was to validate a methodology for Priority Determination of Topics (PDT) of CPGs.METHODS AND RESULTS: Firstly, we developed an instrument for PDT with 41 criteria that were grouped under 10 domains, based on a comprehensive systematic search. Secondly, we performed a survey of stakeholders involved in CPGs development, and end users of guidelines, using the instrument. Thirdly, a pilot testing of the PDT procedure was performed in order to choose 10 guideline topics among 34 proposed projects; using a multi-criteria analysis approach, we validated a mechanism that followed five stages: determination of the composition of groups, item/domain scoring, weights determination, quality of the information used to support judgments, and finally, topic selection. Participants first scored the importance of each domain, after which four different weighting procedures were calculated (including the survey results). The process of weighting was determined by correlating the data between them. We also reported the quality of evidence used for PDT. Finally, we provided a qualitative analysis of the process. The main domains used to support judgement, having higher quality scores and weightings, were feasibility, disease burden, implementation and information needs. Other important domains such as user preferences, adverse events, potential for health promotion, social effects, and economic impact had lower relevance for clinicians. Criteria for prioritization were mainly judged through professional experience, while good quality information was only used in 15% of cases.CONCLUSION: The main advantages of the proposed methodology are supported by the use of a systematic approach to identify, score and weight guideline topics selection, limiting or exposing the influence of personal biases. However, the methodology was complex and included a number of quantitative and qualitative approaches reflecting the difficulties of the prioritization process.
|
|
