METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO HEALTH SYSTEMS GOVERNANCE RESEARCH

A R Arifah, M. H. Juni
{"title":"METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO HEALTH SYSTEMS GOVERNANCE RESEARCH","authors":"A R Arifah, M. H. Juni","doi":"10.32827/ijphcs.6.4.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Governance in health is a process whereby important decisions are made and determining who is accountable. Good health system governance (HSG) can ensure optimal functioning of the health system influenced by transparent rules and governed by effective oversight. Assessment of governance can influence the health outcome of the population when subsequent improvement is made for better policy input. The aim of this review is to understand the methodological research approaches used in the assessment of HSG. Methodology: A review was directed from a collection of articles obtained from Pubmed, ScienceDirect and CINAHL databases that summarises relevant prior publication on methodological approaches that have been used in HSG research describing study design, methods of data collection and analysis. Only original articles of the past ten years (2009 to 2019) published in English language is included. Data was extracted base on a pre-constructed matrix. Results and Discussion: Findings revealed different research methods for the qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods design. Similarities between the three are in terms of how research questions direct the choice of study design and the use of a governance framework or recommendation of indictors to guide the study.  There were differences in terms of the nature of study, the methods used, and type of information gathered. Each study design has its own strengths and limitations. Lessons learned include research going beyond descriptions, tailoring approaches to fit study objectives, the importance of communicating findings and being clear in giving recommendations for policymaking. Conclusion: The qualitative design is contextual yet difficult to generalize, the quantitative design is generalizable yet very explicit to certain indicators specified while the mixed methods design is comprehensive but requires more resources to carry out. Keywords: health system governance, assessment, methodological approaches, research design","PeriodicalId":14315,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32827/ijphcs.6.4.35","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Governance in health is a process whereby important decisions are made and determining who is accountable. Good health system governance (HSG) can ensure optimal functioning of the health system influenced by transparent rules and governed by effective oversight. Assessment of governance can influence the health outcome of the population when subsequent improvement is made for better policy input. The aim of this review is to understand the methodological research approaches used in the assessment of HSG. Methodology: A review was directed from a collection of articles obtained from Pubmed, ScienceDirect and CINAHL databases that summarises relevant prior publication on methodological approaches that have been used in HSG research describing study design, methods of data collection and analysis. Only original articles of the past ten years (2009 to 2019) published in English language is included. Data was extracted base on a pre-constructed matrix. Results and Discussion: Findings revealed different research methods for the qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods design. Similarities between the three are in terms of how research questions direct the choice of study design and the use of a governance framework or recommendation of indictors to guide the study.  There were differences in terms of the nature of study, the methods used, and type of information gathered. Each study design has its own strengths and limitations. Lessons learned include research going beyond descriptions, tailoring approaches to fit study objectives, the importance of communicating findings and being clear in giving recommendations for policymaking. Conclusion: The qualitative design is contextual yet difficult to generalize, the quantitative design is generalizable yet very explicit to certain indicators specified while the mixed methods design is comprehensive but requires more resources to carry out. Keywords: health system governance, assessment, methodological approaches, research design
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
卫生系统治理研究的方法学方法
背景:卫生治理是一个作出重要决定和确定谁负责的过程。良好的卫生系统治理(HSG)可以确保卫生系统在透明规则的影响和有效监督下发挥最佳功能。在为更好的政策投入而进行后续改进时,对治理的评估可以影响人口的健康结果。本综述的目的是了解HSG评估中使用的方法学研究方法。方法学:从Pubmed、ScienceDirect和CINAHL数据库中获得的文章集合进行综述,总结了HSG研究中使用的相关方法学方法,描述了研究设计、数据收集和分析方法。仅收录近十年(2009年至2019年)以英文发表的原创文章。根据预先构建的矩阵提取数据。结果与讨论:研究结果揭示了定性、定量和混合方法设计的不同研究方法。三者之间的相似之处在于研究问题如何指导研究设计的选择,以及如何使用治理框架或指标建议来指导研究。在研究的性质、使用的方法和收集的信息类型方面存在差异。每个研究设计都有自己的优点和局限性。得到的教训包括超越描述的研究、定制适合研究目标的方法、交流研究结果的重要性以及为决策提供明确建议的重要性。结论:定性设计具有情境性,但难以概括;定量设计具有概括性,但对指定的某些指标非常明确;混合方法设计具有综合性,但需要更多的资源进行。关键词:卫生系统治理,评估,方法方法,研究设计
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Factors Associated with the Incidence of COVID-19: A Case Control Study in Tasikmalaya, Indonesia Proficiency, Psychological Wellbeing, and Coping of the College Freshmen of the University of Nueva Caceres Potential of Harum Manis Mango (Mangifera Indica L.) Seed Extract for Nosocomial Infections Stress and Burnout among Medical Workers in Indonesia: A Study during COVID-19 Pandemic Artificial Intelligence and Mental Health Issues: A Narrative Review
×
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:481959085
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