Friday, 21 December 2012
2012 has been a remarkable year of progress for FHS. We entered the implementation phase of our current round of research, and after clearing a number of ethical reviews, things are starting to really take off.
One strand of work bears mentioning in particular – our work on health markets. With recent moves to encourage moves toward Universal Health Coverage, recognising the role that health markets play in delivering health services is critical. Highlights on health markets include a comment in Nature, two new books on the topic, and a recent meeting in Bellagio with key funders. In the new year, we look forward to continuing the discussion, especially as part of the Private Sector in Health Symposium happening in Sydney before the next iHEA World Congress. Which is as good of an opportunity as any to remind everyone that abstract submissions to participate in the symposium are due on 22 January 2013!
Beyond that, we’ve had a large number of outputs published in 2012. In case you missed them, here are the Top 12 FHS outputs of 2012, based on web views only (an imperfect measure, or course, but it’s a place start!) and limited only to items published this year (some of the top views are from previous years – talk about a long tail!).
Top 12 FHS outputs of 2012
12. Better Guidance Is Welcome, But Without Blinders: This comment in PLoS Med by David Peters and Sara Bennett cautioned HSR practitioners against the adoption of rigid approaches to the application of evidence to policy. It's the only journal article to make the list -- but given the number of articles in the pipeline for next year, we don't expect it will be in 2013.
11. Complex Adaptive Systems In Health: This presentation from David Bishai was presented to other FHS members at our partners meeting, but the modelling approach to complex systems has garnered a lot of interest from much further afield.
10. China’s Health Care Reform: Towards “Health Care For All”: This article, by FHS China partners at CNHDRC Yu Dezhi, Gu Xuefei and Wang Yunping, was originally published by our friends at the Institute for Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, but it’s timeliness in the run-up to the Beijing Symposium and the push to Universal Health Coverage has put it in our top 12 this year too.
9. Are Informal Providers A Dangerous Detour On The Road To Universal Health Coverage? This series of videos, produced in collaboration with the Center for Health Market Innovations, succeeded in marrying two key issues this year, health markets and UHC. Add your voice to the conversation!
8. The 2nd Symposium On HSR: As Daunting As Kabul? This short blog from Kojo Osei-Bonsu, who project manages the FHS Afghanistan research, added a different perspective to the proceedings in Beijing.
7. Transforming Health Markets In Asia And Africa: Improving Quality And Access For The Poor: The FHS book, edited by Gerry Bloom, David Bishai and Barun Kanjilal has been a massive effort from across the consortium. We’ve even had two successful launches for the book in Washington, D.C. in collaboration with the DC HSB and in Kolkata, India.
6. Doctoring The Village Doctors: Giving Attention Where It Is Due: This book from FHS Bangladesh gives a candid look at their first phase of FHS research and the challenges associated with trying to create a franchise of informal health providers.
5. Understanding The Policy Process: Reflections From The International Conference On Evidence-Informed Policy Making: In this blog, Kakaire Ayub Kirunda of FHS Uganda feeds back from his experience at a conference hosted by INASP on evidence-informed policymaking.
4. An Interview With Dr Kirsty Newman: Understanding Evidence-Informed Policy: And apparently, it was a really popular topic – Kakaire Ayub Kirunda also comes in at number 4 with another blog from the same conference, this time for an interview with Kirsty Newman, who is now a Research Uptake Manager at DFID.
3. Tackling Unregulated Health Markets: This news item helped us pull together our work on health markets. A version of the article appeared on the IDS webpage and was pulled through to ReliefWeb.
2. Forgetting John Snow At The Beijing HSR Symposium: Perhaps unsurprisingly, some of the most viewed content on the FHS website comes from our blogs during the Beijing HSR Symposium. This one, from Professor David Bishai of JHSPH, doesn’t pull any punches as it encouraged those at the symposium to remember the spirit of John Snow.
1. Would You Pee On Your Tomatoes? Where The HSR Approach To Knowledge Translation Is Falling Short: And the most read blog from this year comes from FHS Policy Influence and Research Uptake Manager, Jeff Knezovich. Maybe it’s the provocative title (it came out on the same day as the US election and one day before the Chinese 18th Party Congress, so he was looking for something that stood out a bit). Or maybe it was the content. Or maybe it was that it was linked to from the Beijing HSR site. Whatever the reason, Jeff assures us that there will be a follow up in the new year looking on the flip side of the coin – in other words, what the HSR approach to knowledge translation is getting right!
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
The meeting brought together a small group of policy-makers, entrepreneurs, academics and funders to discuss the changing face of health markets, and in particular to consider future trends in such markets. The meeting report is now available.
The group that met at Bellagio were careful to explain that they take an agnostic view about health markets. They do not advocate for privatization or the expansion of private market share as a public health goal, but they do recognize the pervasiveness of market relationships in health systems, and the need to employ market analyses in order to develop a clearer understanding of market functioning, and how interventions can shape health markets for public policy goals.
At the meeting, participants reviewed the evolution of health markets, identified key drivers of and gaps resulting from their rapid development, and highlighted critical issues that must be tackled to ensure the poorest have access to safe, affordable, effective and equitable health services.
“Engaging with health markets is going to be critical for governments in the future, especially given the recent UN resolution,” noted FHS CEO Sara Bennett, referring to last week’s UN resolution urging countries to work towards affordable Universal Health Coverage. Many country governments will need to purchase services from both public and private providers to achieve universal health coverage, and this may present a real opportunity to shape health markets of the future. At the same time governments need to guard against arrangements that may enable powerful stakeholders to consolidate their position in a health system that provides ineffective services at an unnecessarily high cost.
The group highlighted several issues regarding health markets:
- Incomplete information: Spotty data is available for government regulators in most low- and middle-income countries. The group therefore proposed that governments identify data that market actors should be required to provide on a routine basis, through, for example, routine reporting by private providers.
- Regulatory experimentation: The group identified a wide variety of market shaping strategies to improve the delivery of a comprehensive range of health services and products. But they argued mainly for regulatory approaches packaged into “bundles”, which they felt were more likely to succeed despite being more complex to implement and to evaluate.
- Building capacity among potential regulators: As markets continue to expand and evolve, governments are playing “catch-up” in fulfilling their stewardship roles. To act as effective stewards, governments need to have organizational capabilities and staff that are skilled in understanding key market players, their interests and functioning, and have the ability to create rules and guidelines that can actually be used by market players.
- Sustaining investments in health markets: Donors have subsidized the development of market mechanisms, such as social franchising and social marketing schemes, with the dual aims of making quality services more accessible to the poor and establishing effective mechanisms for shaping health markets. Public financing will need to play an important role in ensuring the maintenance of such quality services for the poor in the future.
- Health worker markets: During the past decade much attention has been given to the global health worker crisis and in particular the imbalance of health workers between countries (rich and poor), rural and urban areas, and different cadres of health workers. Unfortunately the connections between health markets and the health workforce are rarely fully acknowledged, but are critical in many respects. For example, without sustained government funding newly trained cadres of community health workers will likely become the informal care providers of tomorrow.
- Business models and entrepreneurs: A growing number and variety of business models and entrepreneurs in the health sector have emerged in recent years. It remains to be seen whether currently low-income markets will experience a transition from small, independent and often informal practices, drug shops and laboratories to larger chains and group practices (as seems to be occurring in many middle-income markets), whether transnational and vertically integrated models will develop, and what the consequences of such changes will be for equity and efficiency.
- Networks and quality of care: Networks are important intermediaries between government and a disorganized private sector. Networks can help address information asymmetries, which may result in consumers having difficulty in judging the quality of care, by setting and enforcing quality standards. Networks can also facilitate the distribution of subsidies for the provision of preventive and public health services.
- Toward a health market research agenda: Areas where research and evaluation could lead to rich returns include: the effectiveness of new regulatory approaches, the impact of informational interventions upon consumer behavior, and the effectiveness of alternative mobile and informational technologies. A more coordinated approach to identifying health market research priorities would be helpful.
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
Chair professor P.K. Chattopadhya delivered the welcome address, explaining the necessity and timeliness of having a proactive discussion on livelihood with emphasis on health as an inclusive subject in the backdrop of globalization.
Prof. A.K. Banerjee, Director, IDSK (ex-Vice-Chancellor, University of Calcutta) – in his keynote address – highlighted the absolute necessity of including basic rural health within inclusive rural development and explained the poor condition of India in public health indicators among her south-east Asian counterparts.
The FHS India session was chaired by Prof. Aparajita Mukherjee, a noted expert on health and livelihood issues. The one-and-a-half hour session included presentations on four papers based on findings of recently completed scoping study in the Patharpratima block of the Sundarbans along with a presentation on PIRU. The four papers covered the demand side as well as the supply side of the child health care market in the context of the Sundarbans.
The paper on health care markets sought to provide a differential picture about the rural health care market covering all the providers and the complex interplay among them in the backdrop of climatic shock. The paper on the issues of access by Debjani Burman examined the four dimensions of access – geographical accessibility, availability, affordability and acceptability. The use of a geographic information system (GIS) mapping to indicate the location of providers and the gaps therein drew the audience's attention.
The paper on rural medical practitioners by Nilanjan Patra drew the most questions and interest as well, while the paper on determinants of parent’s choice was acclaimed for its methodology which used an ethnographic approach to address the issue.
The presentation on PIRU honed upon the objectives of introducing to the stakeholders about the nascent concept of PIRU and a demand generation for a proactive value addition to the process. The discussion session saw a good discussion on the potential magnitude of impact a policy-oriented research uptake can actually have. Demand generation for the forthcoming FHS Sundarbans Health Watch Report and our future course of action resulted in a considerable interest and spirited response. Academics remained interested in a judicious and balanced mix of various research methods to inform them of the rural health care market and its allied dimensions for the Sundarbans in the context of its geo-climatic adversities.
The center is going to organize a global meet with policy makers and academicians in which FHS plans to have a panel discussion on its findings.
Monday, 17 December 2012
As highlighted in a recent DFID-run event for research uptake practitioners entitled: Beyond communications, research uptake is a concept that has been evolving rapidly over the last several decades. As such, a variety of challenges face research uptake practitioners and those wanting to strengthen capacity to get research into use. These operate at three levels: systemic barriers, institutional barriers and individual barriers.
The first challenge is probably that the concept of 'research uptake' is little understood. In brief, it is focused mainly on the demand side of research, working to stimulate an enabling environment among end users of research to commission and find appropriate information to support their own policy processes. This assumes working closely with key stakeholders, but also probably assumes some sort of capacity strengthening for them to understand and demand high-quality research.
But more at a systemic level, the barriers to research uptake are numerous—and have been well articulated by others. In particular, the RAPID programme at ODI notes six lessons for getting research into use. They highlight different time horizons and different notions of evidence between the research and policy spheres. A researcher needs as long as research takes and findings are often wrapped in a variety of qualifications and caveats, but policymakers often need clear findings at key points during the policymaking process. As a former policymaker turned researcher from Brazil so wonderfully put it: “In Brazil we don’t talk about pilots. I can’t go to an official and say ‘give me two years and I’ll give you the answer’. Why? Because we have elections. If a policymaker waited two years to take action he’d be shot.”
We also know that the research-policy-practice interface is a complex and dynamic one. Not only do those trying to get research into policy need to have some knowledge about where in a particular policy cycle the research topic is, they must also understand who is working to influence that process, what their drivers are and how they’re doing it. And unfortunately, one of the corollary barriers is that change doesn’t happen the same way twice, which means a lot of experimentation, expertise and critical thinking are required to link research, policy and practice. This latter point also helps explain why research uptake is focusing so heavily on strengthening the demand-side—if a policymaker is requesting research findings, half the battle is already fought.
This brings in another systemic barrier—research funders distort demand. While research funders aren’t necessarily the end users of research, they are the ones that set the priorities through what they are willing to fund. Often some sort of demonstration that there is a gap in existing knowledge and some demand for the research results is part of the grading criteria when selecting proposals, but the distortionary effect of the donor cannot be overlooked.
There are also perverse incentives on both the supply and demand side that act as a significant barrier to research uptake. On the research side, promotion is most often dependent on publishing as many papers as possible in peer-reviewed journals with high impact factors, not in communicating that research. There are also time pressures—a student knocking on the office door is more likely to capture a researcher’s attention than a distant policymaker in a capital city far away. And funding is a chronic problem—with researchers perpetually chasing the next grant, who has time to do “extra” work communicating research findings? On the policy side, incentives tend to focus on maintaining political legitimacy. That might include carrying through on promises made during electoral processes, adhering to a particular ideological standpoint (and let’s be clear, evidence-informed policy is a clear ideological position too), or just not looking idiotic in the public eye.
Finally, at a systemic level, research uptake requires a diverse skills set to deliver. In addition to strong research skills, Simon Maxwell likes to argue that policy entrepreneurs require four key skills: story telling, policy engineering, networking and political fixing. But these skills are underpinned by a huge area of oft-overlooked technical skills, including:
- Editing and language skills
- Digital engagement skills
- Graphic design and desktop publishing
- Media planning and engagement
- Event planning and management
- Database management
- Data analysis
- Information literacy
- Knowledge management
- Budgeting and programme management
- Marketing and public relations
- IT skills
Focusing now mainly on the supply side of research at an organisational level, given all the systemic challenges, one of the biggest barriers to research uptake is figuring out where to start and how to institutionalise appropriate systems and processes that support research uptake activities. Does a research institute need a central communications/ marketing/ dissemination/ media relations/ knowledge management team? If so, where should it sit? In a grant management office? By itself? As part of the IT department? In the library?
On top of that, where are the capacities for research uptake best placed? Certain skills probably need to remain with individual researchers, but some are probably better supported by an outside team.
Funding research activities is also usually a challenge. It depends on the funding models employed by an individual institute, but many (maybe even most, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa) institutes lack core funding, and must raise money through projects or other sources. Striking a balance between support to projects versus strengthening and supporting institutional engagement is key, and is also hugely difficult. Does a central team get funded out of overheads? Do they try to support themselves through their own projects and research?
And from an institutional perspective, brain drain is always a worry. If organisations invest in building research uptake skills, there’s no guarantee staff will stick around and that they will continue to benefit from these skills. Researchers may end up in a relevant ministry, for example (though this could turn out to be a good thing for the institution). More centralised teams with specific transferable skills often find themselves poached by the private sector, and in developing countries, especially, by international agencies and non-governmental organisations.
Last but not least, at an individual level, barriers to research uptake are multiple. One of the most frequent points of opposition to research uptake that I hear, and one that I’m hugely sympathetic to, is that researchers must, first and foremost, be good researchers and that if policymakers or practitioners want to use their work, it’s their prerogative. This is a notion we must counter, strongly and with a moral imperative. It is not just the responsibility of policymakers and practitioners to seek out research—it is also the researcher’s responsibility to make it accessible, especially when it can (and does!) save lives.
Another individual barrier is the ego—and I mean this in two ways. At one level, effective research uptake activities require strong brands from strong researchers. This means that researchers must at some level be sure of themselves and of their findings and be confident to take them out into the big wide world. On the flip side, researchers must be willing to accept help and advice and work with others. Just because a researcher, who has more often than not been focusing on a study for a significant period of time, understands the findings doesn’t mean everyone will—EVERYONE needs a good editor, always. Also, given the diverse skills required for research uptake, it’s highly unlikely that any one person knows best.
That may sound like a lot of barriers and I’d hate to leave people thinking it cannot be done. A number of examples of incredibly impactful research uptake activities exist—and they can and have improved and saved the lives of many. It just means there’s some work to do.
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
One of the big debates at the 18th Conference of the Parties (COP18) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which came to a close last week, revolved around the role of agriculture and whether to establish a separate agricultural work programme. The decision to set up a work programme has now been deferred – again. This is an opportunity to rethink the broader issues around climate change and agriculture.
Tuesday, 11 December 2012
Credibility across cultures: expertise, uncertainty and the global politics of scientific advice, 6-7 February 2013, UK
Tackling 21st century sustainability and development challenges requires the 'best available' scientific advice. But what is 'best advice' and how might this idea need to be re-thought?
Many questions persist about how to build and maintain robust, open and accountable processes of expert advice that can operate effectively across disciplines, sectors, social contexts and national boundaries.
Join us for the STEPS Centre Annual Symposium on 6-7 Feb 2013, to debate the critical task of maintaining credibility across cultures.
• Register Now: http://stepssymposium2013.eventbrite.co.uk/
(50% discount available for students)
• Programme: View the Symposium programme
This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now
Saturday, 1 December 2012
Thursday, 29 November 2012
IDS are looking for someone with a doctorate degree in social science or public health, who combines excellent research skills, a knowledge of the messy contexts within which poor people seek health care and drugs and a desire to find practical ways to improve health system performance.
The successful candidate will have special expertise in one or more of the following topics:
- intervening in health markets.
- analysing institutional development in the health and social sectors.
- studying diffusion of pro-poor innovations.
For more details and to apply, please visit the IDS website.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
|A billboard advertising chicken in Accra, Ghana. |
By alew on Flickr
The well known expression – that [something] is 'as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas' – makes an intriguing and to date poorly understood link between poultry and electoral politics. But in some parts of the world, poultry has a wider political – and psychological – significance for how voters and politicians behave.
During some recent field work in Accra, Ghana, while researching pathways to sustainability in the poultry sector, we took the opportunity to conduct a series of rapid, opportunistic 'interviews' with taxi drivers. Our focus was on chicken consumption: the last time they ate chicken; the way it was prepared; the origin of the chicken; how often they eat chicken etc.
The 'sample' was 24 male taxi drivers aged between approximately 25 and 50 working in the nation's capital. We obviously make no claim that these respondents are in any way representative of consumers at large. Nevertheless, a number of interesting points emerged:
- While nearly all the taxi drivers reported eating chicken, and some several times a week, nearly two thirds of our informants expressed a preference for fish. They also noted that fish had become more expensive in recent years.
- Most had fairly well developed views and preferences in regard to the different qualities (price, flavour, texture, 'hardness' or 'softness') of different kinds of chicken (e.g. frozen imported, 'fresh local' or 'village'). While many expressed a preference for 'fresh local' or 'village' chicken, the relatively low price of imported frozen chicken (which can be less than half the price of local chicken) weighs heavily in its favour.
- Most expressed a preference for a particular chicken 'part', with thighs being the most commonly identified. One young man explained this choice by saying: 'that piece is a heavy meat'. (Thighs seem to account for a large proportion of the estimated 70,900 metric tons of frozen chicken imported into Ghana annually). Only one said he had no preference and could not tell which part he was eating.
- A number of taxi drivers highlighted the fact that when they were children they consumed chicken only very occasionally: one told us that in those days in the village his family ate chicken and jollof rice only once in a year – at Christmas. This shift in consumption appears to be specific to chicken as opposed to all forms of meat. Few of the taxi drivers mentioned either recently eating or having a preference for other kinds of meat (beef, goat, pork, etc).
- The 'turn to chicken' may have an important generational element, with young people giving chicken a central place on their plates. In the words of our research assistant, a recent university graduate, 'I cannot even remember the last time I ate beef''. He frequents 'chicken and chips' shops and other fast food eateries, as do his friends.
- Health and safety concerns were very apparent. The fact that you could never be sure where the frozen chicken came from or how long it has been frozen arose several times. A number of our informants linked their preference for local or imported chicken, and particular chicken parts, to fat content. They also mentioned radio, newspaper and internet stories about foreign operators having purchased sick and dead birds and dressed them for sale in Ghana, or chicken parts being injected with preservatives or water before being imported.
Our field work coincided with the final weeks of campaigning before the December 7, 2012 presidential election. We took the opportunity to ask each of the taxi drivers whether they intended to vote. With only one exception (he did not have the proper identity documents), everyone came back with an immediate and emphatic, 'Of course!' and most responded in a way that implied: 'Why would you even ask such a silly question?'
|Frozen chicken on sale in Ghana. By ethanz on Flickr|
Our interviews with taxi drivers in Accra point to another dimension of the story of democratisation, agriculture and food. How is the vibrant, multi-party electoral environment in Ghana affecting food and agricultural policy, and how does this link to the lives of politically aware, informed urban citizens with rising incomes and expectations (such as our taxi drivers)?
Simplistically, policy processes around poultry in Ghana can be conceived of as dealing with a set of trade-offs between the interests of four groups: small-scale maize and soya producers; commercial poultry producers; urban consumers; and politicians.
The massive increase in the importation of frozen chicken over the last decade would suggest that, despite much rhetoric about support for the domestic poultry industry, policy makers have consistently favoured the interests of urban consumers over those of domestic poultry producers.
Put another way, policy makers seem to have prioritised food policy (i.e. to increase the supply of inexpensive, protein-rich foods to consumers) over agricultural development policy.
|Three-storey KFC in Accra. |
By sportivetricks on Flickr
If this is indeed so, it would be a brave (or foolish?) politician who would make any move likely to result in a significant increase in the retail price of chicken meat. Chicken might be thought of as a 'politically charged' food (along with, for example, rice), with important implications for policy processes and electoral outcomes. Just as sensible turkeys don't vote for Christmas, politicians may not risk making chicken more expensive for consumers – even if local agriculture might benefit in the long run.
For more information about the STEPS Centre's project on poultry in Ghana, visit the Livestock project page on their website.
- SRID. 2011. Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures 2010. Accra: Ministry of Food and Agriculture (full report - pdf)
- Iwasaki, I. (2004) Rice as Psychological Staple: The Role of Rice in the Creation and Maintenance of Individual and National Identity. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Sheffield, Sheffield
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
The average of such cases [of deliberate self harm or attempted suicide] per month in each BPHC [Block Primary Health Care Centre] has gone up from 11 to 15 between 2001 and 2008. The share of pesticide or chemical poisoning in total DSH cases has also increased to 89 per cent.Professor Barun Kanjilal, the principle investigator from FHS-India explains that:
The livelihood insecurity, which is a product of a complex link between repeated climatic shock and chronic poverty, is the main reason why Sundarban women are disproportionately affected by mental health problems. Ironically, the easy availability of modern agricultural inputs, like insecticide, has made it easier for them to find a ‘solution’ in suicide.In addition to frequent climatic shocks, like Cyclone Aila that came through the area in 2009, mental stress can also arise from post-traumatic stress following animal attacks. The article notes:
In villages adjacent to the forests, where communities depend on fishing and collecting forest produce, people are especially vulnerable to animal attacks. Women, who often spend hours standing knee-deep in the water, collecting spawn, are dangerously exposed to sudden attacks by tigers or crocodiles. In addition, there is always the lurking fear of widowhood – every time the man ventures out on a fishing trip or in the forests.
Monday, 26 November 2012
|Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee of J-PAL and Barun Kanjilal of IIHMR |
introduce the new FHS book to researchers interested
in rural health care providers in India.
Within the Indian context, RHCPs (also called RMPs, or rural medical practitioners) provide the majority of primary health care as compared to both formal private sector and public sector providers, especially in rural areas. However, this important part of the Indian health system has been ignored for too long. To begin to address this, the meeting convened over forty participants from diverse backgrounds, including: clinicians from both private and public health care institutions, organisations engaged in capacity building interventions for RMPs, research organisations, academic institutes, donor agencies and the media.
Various participants offered their perspectives on why RMPs remained a taboo topic in Indian politics and academia. For example, Swati Bhattacharya, Editor of Anandabazar Patrika, the local-language daily with the widest circulation, noted that the media’s take on RMP is more like society’s view on child labour: a necessary evil. As such, the media mostly remains non-committal on the topic, while paying lip service to the cause of capacity building for the RMPs. That RMPs do not constitute a voting block does not help either: they are a sort of political orphan. Finally, media coverage on health is more focussed on hospitals, in-patients and sudden deaths, which broadly ignores issues of access to most primary health services.
But working with RMPs is itself a challenge. As Arijita Dutta, a professor at Kolkata University, put it, working with RMPs ‘is essentially a trade off between quality and access’. In other words, it’s impossible to get the level of coverage that these RMPs provide through the formal health sector, but the care that they offer is not always of high quality.
Overall, most participants felt that it is necessary to get a complete understanding about the service delivery quality of the entire health system. Merely singling out RMPs and building their capacity while keeping all the rest the same would not help in sustaining the interventions. They stressed that future research should focus on demand-side dynamics related to what health care users perceive as quality and effective treatment.
Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee, Professor of Economics at MIT and Director of J-PAL in the US, and Gerry Bloom, Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies in the UK, launched of the FHS book, hoping that it could inform discussions of the future scope of research to find out what works and what does not in mainstreaming the RMPs to achieve universal coverage in health in the remote areas and for the vulnerable populations.
At the end, key questions raised at the meeting include:
- Training for RMPs was questioned as a way of improving care. This assumes that it is a lack of knowledge that prevents quality care – but there are other incentives (like selling unnecessary drugs) at work.
- As such, are there ways to shift incentives? In other words, is the profit earning potential compatible with desired health outcomes?
- RHCPs should not look more qualified than they are, or it risks legitimising sub-par practices.
- Instead of training, are schemes to increase coverage of formal health providers, like rural doctors schemes, a better alternative? What are the costs and benefits of each approach?
Thursday, 15 November 2012
Pastoralism and Development in Africa: Dynamic Change at the Margins
London House Large Common Room
London WC1N 2AB
To register, email Harriet Dudley: email@example.com
Chaired by Dr Camilla Toulmin
Director, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
Dr Jeremy Lind (Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex) and Prof Hussein Mahmoud (Pwani University College, Kenya) will present some key themes from the book. Prof Katherine Homewood (University College London) and Dr Zeremariam Fre (Executive Director, Pastoral and Environmental Network for the Horn of Africa – PENHA) will respond. Followed by open discussion.
For more information, see the event page on the STEPS Centre website.
This book is part of the STEPS Centre's Pathways to Sustainability book series.
Monday, 12 November 2012
In the videos above, several respondents challenge the notion that informal providers are a dangerous distraction. Dominc Montagu, of UCSF, for example, takes a pragmatic stance by suggesting that millions of people around the globe already get their health services from informal providers, and that 'their not going to change that just because someone has a vision'. Meenakshi Gautam, of the Centre for Research on New International Economic Order, India, stresses that primary care must be within a half-hour walk from the village, but that in India there are over 600,000 villages -- more than the number of formally trained doctors in the entire country. She suggests that informal providers are better placed to fill this gap. And Oladimeji Oladepo from the University of Ibadan gives an example from Nigeria where informal providers have played a key role in getting anti-malarial drugs to the rural poor at low costs.
[Editor's note: This blog and videos were originally co-produced by Future Health Systems and the Center for Health Market Innovations for the Private Sector in Health.]
Friday, 9 November 2012
There were many methodologically focused sessions during the 2nd Sympsoium on Health Systems Research, including several focusing on more qualitative methods. Future Health Systems participated in one on participatory action research, highlighting their research in Easter Uganda to help improve mothers’ access to safe deliveries. Below are some reflections from the two FHS participants.
HARRIET NAYIGA, SENIOR NURSING OFFICER, KAMULI DISTRICT
What are my responsibilities as part of the District Health Management Team (DHMT) in Kamuli District?
My responsibilities include: the planning, soliciting, receiving and distributing of additional resources for district health needs; monitoring and providing feedback on the implementation of programs; and providing supportive supervision, mentoring and coaching to health providers so as to improve the quality of health care services provided. I have been a senior nursing office for many years and more recently part of the DHMT.
What have I learned from the panel on action research and being at the conference?
It has been an educative experience for me, pushing me to think how best I am learning, doing, improving. Action research has enriched our program as it makes us think broadly, strengthens our planning, makes us prioritize the issues of concern. It has made me think of contingency plans required, to come up with a plan B, in case things change. It has made me consider things not usually talked about, such as what the community is doing today and tomorrow, rather than always depending on technocrats, especially when concerned about sustainability. The conference has been a wide, wide, wide exposure. It has made me think out of the box. I have done a,b,c, now what about d? What can I share with others and contribute?
ASHA GEORGE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
What was I presenting at the symposium?
I have been working with Makerere University and Ministry of Health, Uganda over the past year while they have been re-strategising the Safe Deliveries project to ensure more local action, ownership and sustainability. We strengthened our skills in participatory action research and undertook a series of dialogues at national, district and community level in iterative phases with multiple stakeholders including adolescent mothers, male partners, transport workers, local leaders and other district and national officials. We first discussed the current project and identified challenges or issues that had to be addressed to support local action, ownership and sustainability. After identifying the most important challenges, we worked with stakeholders to brainstorm possible strategies to address the challenges and prioritize them in order of feasibility.
What did I learn from the action research panel?
While I was familiar with action research used by those involved in community health, I was very impressed by the number of health systems researchers engaged with action research methodology at the conference and in the panel audience. It was motivating to know that one is not working in isolation.
I realized that we got lost in the challenge of documenting the process (number of meetings, at what stage, with whom) and failed to present how participatory action research is particularly suited for addressing power relations. I perceived our team addressing power by being critically aware of who is involved and what is discussed. Despite the success of the voucher scheme in increasing women’s access to facility services, through this participatory process the following issues were identified as being critical: lack of male engagement in supporting women’s health savings or decision making; low awareness by women of their entitlements; community transport and savings systems still requiring strengthening; and poor quality of care at facilities, including providers being rude, insisting on unofficial payments and making women delivery in positions that ran contrary to their local social norms. Makerere played a critical role in consulting with marginalized groups on their own, before facilitating dialogues that included their participation with other more powerful stakeholders, and ensuring that the issues they raised didn’t get swept under the table. Most striking were my memories of local religious leaders and politicians; as their involvement was not always a one way monologue. Interestingly, the district managers on the panel discussed power in a different way. While I as a researcher was concerned about how power can exclude stakeholders and their concerns or stereotype them in frames that perpetuate their marginalization, the district managers viewed power as a positive force. They felt it was their responsibility to unleash power at every level to support positive change.
It was striking to see the commonalities across the projects presented. That action research helped to change perceptions of district managers reorienting them to more community and public health needs; foster trust relationships; and provide a space to focus, reflect and support more strategic planning in the middle of routines and environments that are more typically characterized by diminished resources, competing demands, overburdened workloads.
Valuable concerns raised by the audience included:
- the duration of time or number of action cycles that needed to be undertaken to see effects
- similarities between action research and quality improvement cycles
- whether action research efforts stay on islands of excellence or whether the skills seep into other areas of practice
- the challenge of generalizing the experience to other contexts
- the challenge of influencing change at levels higher than where the action research initiatives are taking place, especially when higher level officials maybe less process oriented and more demanding for visible, quick results
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Of course there are qualifications – and these are important, perhaps increasingly so in a globalised world. Very small farms, fragmented in different ways, are clearly not ideal, and suffer from many inefficiencies. Yet, what is 'small' and 'very small' is often not clear in the literature. Equally, there may be economies of scale in certain production-marketing systems, making larger farms more efficient. For example, getting high value products into international markets may mean complying with quality standards which small farmers would find difficult to adhere to.
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
By Jeff Knezovich, Policy Influence and Research Uptake Manager for Future Health Systems
As the Policy Influence and Research Uptake Manager for the Future Health Systems research consortium, knowledge translation is central to what I do. I was very pleased to hear, then, that it was a key theme of the 2nd Global Symposium on Health Systems Research. During the symposium, I had the opportunity to participate in several related sessions (though I wish I could have made even more!), and while there were a few interesting insights, it seems to me the health systems research (HSR) approach to knowledge translation is still falling short. Here's why.
I’m relatively new to HSR, but one of the impressions I’m left with from this Symposium is that it took the topic a long while to crystallise as an area of study because it is so inherently multidisciplinary. Health economics, medical epidemiology and the full gamut of political and social sciences, not to mention complexity science, all seem to fall under the HSR umbrella. And so I’m surprised that much of the learning and approaches to ‘knowledge translation’ discussed here seem to come from the medical sector. At one level, that’s likely because evidence-based medicine is widely recognised as the progenitor of the evidence-based policy movement. But the understanding of evidence-based policy has moved on a lot since the 90s (heck, people hardly anyone refers to it at ‘evidence-based policy’ anymore, preferring the idea of ‘evidence-informed policy’). So why aren’t health systems researchers looking elsewhere for inspiration? And why are they working so hard to re-invent the wheel?
A lot of the findings I’ve seen from the presentations are in line with some of the already well-established lessons on linking research, policy and practice, which is heavily informed by political and social sciences. For example, one paper emphasised the importance of timing to influence policy… something Kingdon has been emphasising through the idea of ‘policy windows’ since at least 1995 (though I can’t imagine Kingdon was the first person to talk about the importance of timing). In a closed satellite meeting I attended, a Brazilian policy-maker underscored the point: ‘In Brazil,’ he said, ‘we don’t talk about pilots. Why? Because we have elections every four years – we can’t say to an elected official “give me two years and I’ll give you the answer”. If the officials waited that long to take action, they’d be shot’.
And despite this well established and once-again reiterated knowledge on best practice, at the symposium another panel insisted the best way to answer a policy question was to spend up to two years on a systematic review that could be summarised in a policy brief, a mere year-and-a-half (at least) past the policy window...
Within HSR, we also need to challenge this notion of a large gap between research and policy that must be bridged. The fact is that there are a large number of mechanisms already in place in most countries to bridge that gap – technocratic networks of old school chums are a good place to start, but think tanks, the media, research institutes, patient interest groups, parliamentary libraries, professional associations, political parties and more all exist. When I hear about a ‘gap’ it’s more often than not because the researcher isn’t in the right networks to influence their target. But many of the best policy-oriented researchers have served some time in a local, regional, national or international governing body or two. And many of the best policy-makers have decent degrees and bounce between government and (quasi)academia. Indeed, I found it ironic that the person presenting on this supposed gap had already left his researcher job to work for the Ministry of Health.
Which brings me to another point about the role of evidence in health systems research: there seems to be a strange notion among HSR practitioners that evidence speaks for itself. If an RCT or systematic review finds something to be true, then it must be the BEST solution and should be adopted as policy. But we know that in policy-making spheres, it’s hugely important how that evidence plays in the value systems, customs, and general context of the target population. Sure, science might say the cheapest way to ensure a bumper tomato crop is to urinate on them, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that smallholder-farmers are likely to accept the advice. Need more convincing? A five-minute talk with just about any health economist should disabuse you of the acceptability of all forms of evidence in the health systems sphere. So let’s call this the tomato test – if you wouldn’t pee on your own tomatoes then you may need to rethink your approach to policy influence.
Despite these shortcomings, there were some really insightful findings and approaches presented too.
I am somewhat sceptical of the idea of a professionalised body of ‘knowledge brokers’. Researchers and policy makers need to be able to talk to each other directly – the best knowledge brokers facilitate that process, the worst insert themselves in between. And so I was pleased to hear of an interesting example of effective knowledge brokers in a study across several sub-Saharan African countries. The study noted that having ‘champions’ within the Ministry of Health was key to changing the policy. Again, the importance of champions is something we’ve known about for a long time, but the reason they were important here was not just because of their persistence, but also because they were able to effectively synthesise international and local data to determine winning arguments that would help move the agenda along within the ministry.
Overall, I’m delighted to see a focus on knowledge translation at the symposium. But I encourage HS researchers interested in linking research, policy and practice to look elsewhere for inspiration. The upcoming conference on the ‘Politics of Poverty Research and Pro-Poor Policy Development’ hosted by an agriculturally focussed institute might be an interesting place to start.
Monday, 5 November 2012
|A Beijing taxi driver zooms past. From Flickr/borisvanhoytema|
I was cold, and I was wet – having waited for a taxi home for about an hour. And despite my interest in the subject, I somehow took little solace in the fact that getting soaked was the failure of a complex adaptive system. After the closing plenary of the 2nd Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Beijing, the skies opened up. And as the afternoon progressed to evening, the rain turned to sleet, and eventually even snow. Many people were heading to the airport to head home after the conference, and yet they couldn’t get a taxi. I was lucky that I wasn’t in a rush to get to the airport, but I was among the wandering masses, traipsing through the streets against the rain and wind trying to get back to my hotel, bemused that taxis were in such short supply when demand was clearly at its highest.
At one level, in a city of more than 20 million people, it’s easy to imagine that if suddenly a million plus people no longer desire to walk from point A to point B, that the traffic system must absorb a sudden tide of passengers. In this case, the metro continued, and the buses were running smoothly, and they likely bore the brunt of the increased traffic. Taxis, on the other hand, were particularly scarce.
Later, someone explained to me (and this is second-hand knowledge, I haven’t checked Beijing city policy so please correct me if I’m wrong!) that in order to keep Beijing taxi drivers in check, they made the drivers themselves directly responsible for the costs associated with an accident. That may help keep speeding and reckless driving to a minimum when the skys are blue(ish -- it is Beijing after all), but when it comes to driving in more difficult road conditions, when demand is at its peak, in means that taxi drivers make something of a different economic calculation and stay off the roads. Talk about unintended consequences.
But the local transport system was not the only complex adaptive system (CAS) on show here in Beijing. As a PhD student who is currently grappling with understanding Uganda’s complex health workforce dynamics for my dissertation research, I was unsure what to expect to hear about complex adaptive systems (CAS) at the 2nd Global Symposium on HSR. I was fortunate to have participated in the 1st Global Symposium on HSR in Montreux in 2010, which included a handful of discussions on this topic. In Montreux, the discourse was focused on conceptualizing CAS and systems thinking, asking what it they are and why should we apply them in health systems research.
The discourse in Beijing this week has been quite different. Yes, there are still questions on CAS terminology, theoretical underpinnings, and, to some extent, the rationale of using CAS in health systems research. But there is a noticeable shift towards building the evidence, refining and adapting methods and tools to study health systems through a CAS lens, and moving from theory to practice.
For example, David Peters chaired a session on the last day of the conference where colleagues from Uganda, China, JHSPH, and IDS presented their work on CAS – ranging from country-level research on CAS, to reviews of the non-health literature, and to computer simulations. The launch of the recent Health Policy and Planning supplement on Systems Thinking highlights additional interesting case studies and reviews, including an analysis of FHS projects in Bangladesh, Uganda, and China through the lens of the Develop-Distort Dilemma. Applications of methods such as social network analysis to policy and health systems networks have also been presented. Several poster presentations (including my own presenting preliminary findings on local system adaptations in the management of dual practice in Uganda) also focused on using a CAS lens to explore and evaluate health systems issues.
In addition to learning about all of these applications, it has also been interesting to link up with other researchers applying CAS methods and tools in their work, such as those whose proposals have been selected to be developed within the context of the Alliance for HSPR’s next supplement on applications of CAS, professors and students using CAS in their work, and other interested colleagues from both research and non-research organizations.
CAS in health systems research is still abstract. Indeed, the applications of qualitative and quantitative methods to this topic are complicated and communicating the methods and results to research users and policy-makers (and even other researchers!) remains challenging. Nevertheless, it is an exciting time to work in this field as we are bringing in multiple disciplines and perspectives to examine the “why” and “how” in the rich and complex contexts within which we are working.
Confucius once said that “the cautious seldom err.” In the context of working on CAS, the journey forward might be somewhat risky – as researchers are trying to develop and disseminate their work. However, with a healthy dose of skepticism and a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach, the journey ahead will also be exciting and fun!
Thursday, 1 November 2012
I’ve just arrived in Beijing, China, after a long journey from Kabul, Afghanistan. To say it’s a change of pace is an understatement. The sheer scale of the city is impressive – if a bit daunting – as is the 2nd Global Symposium on Health Systems Research, which I’m here for. I hear there are more than 1,850 participants, which sounds like a lot to me, but is but a mere drop in the ocean of Beijing.
Back in Afghanistan, the team I coordinate works in partnership with the Community Based Health Care (CBHC) unit of the Afghan Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) on a project to pilot community scorecards as a community engagement strategy for improving utilization and coverage of health care. Initial findings from the research we are conducting are inspiring to the team and our Principle Investigator, Dr Anbrasi Edward, and we are looking towards the scale up of the community scorecard under the auspices of the CBHC with a good amount of optimism.
At the symposium, I will be presenting a poster detailing our initial stakeholder analysis as well as touching on highlights from the implementation of the community scorecard. Dr Arwal, the director of the CBHC department (who I have travelled with to Beijing) will be one of three panelists on the MSH convened panel “Getting to Universal Health Care in Fragile States: How Community Health Workers Contribute to Stronger Health Systems”. Dr Arwal will give an overview of the CBHC and the work our two bodies are doing together in Afghanistan.
The poster session will be a first for me, though I’m lucky to have practiced such an activity in one of my epidemiology classes at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The poster presentation was the relatively easy practical element of the aforementioned epidemiology class, which just goes to reinforce a conclusion I came to a long time ago: the tougher classes are the ones that equip students best for work outside the classroom!
One of the main objectives of education is to train minds to enable them to operate at the frontiers of knowledge. Much of the work I am involved in in Afghanistan is, I believe, at the frontier of knowledge – the adaptation of the balanced scorecard to a nation’s health system and the use of the community scorecard, adapted to suit a post conflict setting – and I am excited to share our experiences and findings in the poster session and in informal sessions at the symposium.
I am also excited about the opportunity the symposium presents for learning from other health systems researchers all over the globe. I will be keeping an eye out for the panels, presentations and poster sessions that detail innovations. This symposium holds the potential to unmask research findings, as well as encourage further research, that will be the mainstay of health systems of the future.
BY DAVID BISHAI, PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
We all know the story of John Snow and the Broad Street pump. During the 1854 cholera epidemic in London Dr. Snow painstakingly produced a map of the cases and determined that the infamous pump was the origin of the outbreak. He used his evidence to persuade city officials and the pump handle was removed terminating the epidemic.
Now consider the counterfactual. Suppose the good doctor had taken an online course on global health systems a few months before the outbreak. Dr. Snow’s data would have been an excel spreadsheet repeatedly forwarded until it reached the desk of a global disease burden specialist. Disibility Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost would be calculated. Tree diagrams would be produced. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of various strategies would be tabulated. With luck, the evidence would be sufficient to host a global summit at which donors would pledge millions to launch a “Decade of Action” against cholera. With much fanfare a fleet of carriages emblazoned with “The Cholera Project” and a highly vetted logo would be parked next to project headquarters ready to avert cholera DALYS across the globe. No doubt there would be a research institute to develop biomedical solutions — an amazing vaccine, or special rehydration liquid that would require an army of doctors, nurses, and health workers to aid the stricken. John Snow would be promoted to head the corps of do-gooders, and his picture would be featured prominently in The Lancet as a global health hero.
Nightmare over. History did not turn out that way—at least not for 19th century England. Fortunately due to an enlightenment era faith in the responsibility and capacity of local government to improve the wellbeing of humanity, the people of England institutionalized the local solution of local public health problems. Despite tremendous economic growth in the 19th century, health in the UK did not improve until the English invented public health. More money was not enough to improve health and life expectancy did not top 40 years until 1870. Throughout the 1840s, 50s, and 60s England passed a series of laws that created local health boards, empowered local health officers, and developed local health codes that could be locally enforced. Political resistance to health reforms occurred locally and was overcome locally. Public health reforms prevailed with much more success after voting reforms in 1867 enfranchised the working men whose families stood to gain the most from transforming pestilent crowded slums into livable cities. The John Snow strategy worked and England’s life expectancy began to climb from 40 years in 1867 to 65 by 1945 — before antibiotics and most modern 'cures' were discovered. Other countries around the world had the same success with the same strategy. Prior to the 1950s, economic growth alone wouldn’t bump a country’s health statistics; doctors and universal coverage offered weak remedies. Public health strategies helped translate growing prosperity into hygienic living conditions and this was the route to good health. It still is.
This week the world will gather at the 2nd Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Beijing meeting to collectively forget everything that John Snow stood for. Almost all the programming is about improving the delivery and financing of medical services. Attendees will forget that the best solutions are local solutions based on local data used by local health advocates in harmony with their local community. Few presenters seem to notice that the best and most important part of any health system is not the gleaming hospitals and ICUs. The part that of the health system that creates health changes the social and physical determinants of health through good old fashioned public health practice. Most participants are content to sway to the siren’s song of universal coverage and pretend that doctors are the solution to every malady.
James Joyce speaks in Ulysses of the “ineluctable modality of the visible” – what can be seen with the eye becomes the mode and draws our mind with no escape. The unseen forces in the world may be much more powerful than the visible, but even the most well-intentioned and wise will be drawn to what they can see. The whole world sees doctors and nurses so deploying them and fixing their business problems has become the business of global health. Public health officers stay out of sight by preventing problems before they occur. Who has ever seen a public health officer? What Broad Street survivor would recognize or remember that their life was saved by John Snow?
The good news is that at least one woman in Beijing remembers John Snow. Dr. Afisah Zakariah is Director of Policy, Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation for the Ministry of Health in Ghana. At the Thursday session of the conference she described Ghana’s plans to strengthen its essential public health functions. Building on a World Bank measurement tool, Ghana will audit the performance of district health management teams. The audits will give each district health official a same-day report card and form a foundation for a personalized performance improvement plan with regular follow up coaching visits. The essential public health functions that will be graded and improved in Ghana are the essence of what John Snow did on Broad Street — collecting and using local surveillance data, mobilizing the community around the data, and collaboratively implementing local public health measures. Lucky for Ghana that Dr. Zakariah is on board. This is potentially lucky for Dr. Zakariah’s audience. Maybe they won’t forget John Snow and the spirit of 1854.
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
- Health Systems Global – why care????
- Emerging Voices 2012: Moses’ experiences
- FHS at the 2nd Global Symposium on HSR: Blogging from the front lines
Posted: 30 Oct 2012 07:26 PM PDT
BY SARA BENNETT, CEO of FUTURE HEALTH SYSTEMS, JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
As colleagues from around the world converge on Beijing, I am stuck in Washington, D.C. with the flight departure screens displaying a never-ending list of cancelled flights. Here in D.C. not many people are aware of the symposium in Beijing, and not many people care about Health Systems Global – or as I would prefer it to be called, the new Society for Health Systems Research. I am reminded of an email written by a friend when I wrote suggesting that he stand to be a Board member – he wrote back, saying (and I paraphrase): “Why should I care about this, I don’t think this new global society will have much impact on my country, or the things that I care about.” From a wind and rain-swept, election-obsessed D.C., it is easy to feel the same.
But I do care, and I am upset that I will not be there for the opening of the Symposium. Why is this?
I have been blessed to have worked with some fantastic researchers in this field – too many to name them all here – but despite this, it has been rare that I have felt part of a professional community. I have constantly had to think about how I position my specific interests in health systems research in a way that will make sense to my epidemiological/ economist/ policy-oriented [delete as appropriate] colleagues. At the first symposium in Montreux I was struck by the fact that, for the first time ever, 80% of my professional network was present at the same meeting.
Cynics might say, ‘So what, this is just another opportunity for an expensive jamboree, that everyone enjoys but achieves little in the end’. I beg to differ.
No one came to HSR to get rich, or to have their name plastered all over the Lancet (pah, the Lancet only recently figured out how much HSR matters). We came because we were intrigued by the dilemmas, because we saw the potential to change health systems, and we began to get an inkling of the major impacts that such changes could have on the poor – not just on their access to services, but on how their voice is included in policy debates, and how their needs are reflected across government.
Health systems research has been an orphan subject for way too long – squeezed between prestigious, epidemiological randomized control trials on the one hand, and mainstream social science research on the other. The Symposium and the new global society for health systems research can be the first steps in changing this and thus, changing the way health systems work for the poor and disenfranchised, as well as the middle class. And that’s why I’m standing for election to the Board of the Society.
For the Society to really work, we need everyone engaged – all those who have been laboring in the HSR trenches and who currently think that there is nothing in Beijing, nor the Society, for them. Despite IHP’s best (and sometimes extremely entertaining efforts), many of us are still in the dark as to what the Society is about. That needs to change: with transparent and responsive governance, the Society could help build community, build HSR capacity, develop a common language and terminology for HSR, and help enable us all to be the change agents in health systems that we want to be.
Airports in D.C. re-open tomorrow: I will be in-line early. Wish me luck!
Posted: 30 Oct 2012 04:53 PM PDT
By MOSES TETUI, RESEARCHER AT MAKERERE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
The 2nd Global Symposium on Health Systems Research officially kicks off today here in Beijing, but I’ve already been here for nearly two weeks participating in the Emerging Voices program. Emerging Voices is a joint venture by the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp and Peking University School of Public Health designed to build presentation skills and strengthen voices of younger health systems researchers. The program was incredibly diverse, featuring courses on issues related to health systems research and skills-building workshops on scientific presentation and scientific writing in English in addition to cultural activities in China.
I was selected to participate in the venture as a young researcher from Makerere University School of Public Health in Uganda. I am a part of the wider FHS team in Uganda, where I focus on maternal and neonatal health in low-income settings like Uganda. Now that the venture is over, there are three main reflections I have on the two-week session.
The first part of the training program involved an introduction to new methods of presenting scientific research findings to a diverse audience in an effective way. Two particular methods were introduced: Pecha Kucha and the Prezi. Both of these mechanisms have at their core the use of illustrative pictures to communicate. Pecha Kucha emphasizes brevity, with twenty slides of images each rotating automatically after twenty seconds to force the presentation forward. Prezi is an online system for creating dynamic and creative presentations. I found these approaches very creative as it differed from the convectional PowerPoint presentation principals, which mostly have text. The other advantage of the picture principle is that it gives the presenter the opportunity make the presentation in amore natural and interesting way, therefore capturing the attention of the audience.
Secondly, we had cultural and field visits in which we were treated to different local Chinese traditional sites and introduced to the Chinese health system. I particularly found the cultural visits very rich and was delighted to be able to touch base with old Chinese traditions, which are very vividly painted at the Great Wall, the Summer Palace and the Forbidden City. I was also more than delighted to have a chance of seeing a panda at the Beijing Zoo. But more importantly, during the field visits, I was part of a group that went to what is called the ‘rural parts of Beijing’. Here we visited the district health office and two of their health centers. I was particularly impressed by the integration of Chinese traditional medicine with the western medicine within the mainstream health system. This means that they give both disciplines and approaches adequate resources and attention in terms of developing them further.
And lastly, Emerging Voices offered me an important chance to meet and receive some career guidance from senior health systems researchers. We had a huge number of senior researchers and I was able to meet some experts in participatory action research methodologies. This was of interest to me because it forms the principals upon which we are building our current FHS intervention – MANIFEST. MANIFEST is the maternal and neonatal implementation for equitable systems. Our overarching goal is to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality through tapping into exiting community resources and working through exiting structures in order to increases chances of continuity. I believe that Emerging Voices has introduced me to a network of researchers in my field and therefore opened possibilities for learning and sharing. I therefore want to sincerely thank the organizers of the emerging voices first for the organization and for partially funding my training. I would also want to thank the Future Health Team in Uganda for supporting my travel to Beijing to attend this training.
Posted: 30 Oct 2012 04:27 PM PDT
BY JEFF KNEZOVICH, POLICY INFLUENCE AND RESEARCH UPTAKE MANAGER, INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
It may be stormy and snowy on the eastern seaboard of the United States, but in Beijing, China, the ginko leaves are starting to turn golden and it’s been a crisp couple of fall days. Members from across the FHS research consortium are gathering here this week to participate in the 2nd Global Symposium on Health Systems Research. According to their website, the symposium is ‘dedicated to evaluating progress, sharing insights and recalibrating the agenda of science to accelerate universal health coverage (UHC)’.
With nearly 1,900 participants registered to attend, we’re expecting the symposium to be very busy and for that main theme to play out in a variety of ways. FHS alone will be participating in a wide range of activities throughout, from the Emerging Voices pre-session, to various satellite sessions today, a stall in the marketplace and number of panels, presentations, posters and even a video presentation.
In particular, FHS will bring attention to the role of the private sector in health service delivery, how a complex adaptive systems (CAS) approach generates new insights to health systems functioning, promoting cross-learning among BRICS countries, effective mechanisms for building capacity for health systems research, and approaches to policy influence and research uptake.
We know that not everyone interested in these issues could be here in Beijing. As such, FHS researchers will be sharing their diverse perspectives throughout by offering opinions and reflections on the FHS blog. Please note that these blogs represent only the opinions of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the position of FHS as a consortium, other researchers or partners within the consortium or of our main funders.
Presentations, videos and pictures will also be made available online, so stay tuned!
|You are subscribed to email updates from KNOTS blogger |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|