Health system governance for injury care in low- and middle-income countries: a survey of policymakers and policy implementors.

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMJ Global Health Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017890
Leila Ghalichi
{"title":"Health system governance for injury care in low- and middle-income countries: a survey of policymakers and policy implementors.","authors":"Leila Ghalichi","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Good health system governance is essential for reducing high mortality and morbidity after injury in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Unfortunately, the current state of governance for injury care is not known. This study evaluated governance for injury care in Ghana, Pakistan, Rwanda and South Africa, four LMICs with diverse contexts, to allow understanding of similarities or difference in the status of governance systems in different LMICs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This cross-sectional study captured the perceptions of 220 respondents (31 policymakers and 189 policy implementers) on injury care governance using the framework for governance in health system developed by Siddiqi. Input was captured in 10 domains: strategic vision; participation and consensus; rule of law; transparency; responsiveness; equity and inclusion; effectiveness and efficiency; accountability; intelligence and information; and ethics.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>The median injury care governance score across all domains and countries was 29% (IQR 17-43). The highest median score was achieved in the rule of law (50, 33-67), and the lowest scores were seen in the transparency (0, 0-33), accountability (0, 0-33), and participation and consensus (0, 0-33) domains. Median scores were higher for policymakers (33, 27-48) than for policy implementers (27, 17-42), but the difference was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The four studied countries have developed some of the foundations of good injury care governance, although many governance domains require more attention. The gap in awareness between policymakers and policy implementers might reflect a delayed or partial implementation of policies or lack of communication between sectors. Ensuring equitable access to injury care across LMICs requires investment in all domains of good injury care governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"10 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11815436/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017890","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Good health system governance is essential for reducing high mortality and morbidity after injury in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Unfortunately, the current state of governance for injury care is not known. This study evaluated governance for injury care in Ghana, Pakistan, Rwanda and South Africa, four LMICs with diverse contexts, to allow understanding of similarities or difference in the status of governance systems in different LMICs.

Method: This cross-sectional study captured the perceptions of 220 respondents (31 policymakers and 189 policy implementers) on injury care governance using the framework for governance in health system developed by Siddiqi. Input was captured in 10 domains: strategic vision; participation and consensus; rule of law; transparency; responsiveness; equity and inclusion; effectiveness and efficiency; accountability; intelligence and information; and ethics.

Result: The median injury care governance score across all domains and countries was 29% (IQR 17-43). The highest median score was achieved in the rule of law (50, 33-67), and the lowest scores were seen in the transparency (0, 0-33), accountability (0, 0-33), and participation and consensus (0, 0-33) domains. Median scores were higher for policymakers (33, 27-48) than for policy implementers (27, 17-42), but the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: The four studied countries have developed some of the foundations of good injury care governance, although many governance domains require more attention. The gap in awareness between policymakers and policy implementers might reflect a delayed or partial implementation of policies or lack of communication between sectors. Ensuring equitable access to injury care across LMICs requires investment in all domains of good injury care governance.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
低收入和中等收入国家伤害护理卫生系统治理:对政策制定者和政策执行者的调查。
导言:良好的卫生系统治理对于降低低收入和中等收入国家损伤后的高死亡率和发病率至关重要。不幸的是,目前对伤害护理的管理状况尚不清楚。本研究评估了加纳、巴基斯坦、卢旺达和南非这四个具有不同背景的中低收入国家的伤害护理治理,以了解不同中低收入国家治理系统状况的异同。方法:这项横断面研究利用Siddiqi开发的卫生系统治理框架,收集了220名受访者(31名政策制定者和189名政策实施者)对伤害护理治理的看法。输入被捕获在10个领域:战略愿景;参与和协商一致;法治;透明度;响应性;公平和包容;有效性和效率;问责制;情报和信息;和道德规范。结果:所有领域和国家的伤害护理治理得分中位数为29% (IQR 17-43)。中位数得分最高的领域是法治(50,33 -67),最低的领域是透明度(0,0 -33)、问责制(0,0 -33)以及参与和共识(0,0 -33)。政策制定者的中位数得分(33,27 -48)高于政策实施者(27,17 -42),但差异无统计学意义。结论:四个被研究的国家已经建立了良好的伤害护理治理的一些基础,尽管许多治理领域需要更多的关注。政策制定者和政策执行者之间的认识差距可能反映了政策的延迟或部分执行或部门之间缺乏沟通。确保中低收入国家公平获得伤害护理需要在良好伤害护理治理的所有领域进行投资。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of a One Health programme to address antimicrobial resistance in Pacific Island Countries: a mixed-methods study. The Telehealth Network of Minas Gerais, Brazil: two decades of scaling and sustainability. Getting unstuck: reframing health systems strengthening and resilience in fragile and conflict-affected settings. Untreated, uncontrolled and below-target hypertension in southern Africa: a population-based prevalence and care cascade assessment in rural Lesotho. Understanding clients' and providers' perspectives on the implementation of subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) for self-injection programming in Nigeria.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1