Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30074642›Full record

ArticleThe International journal of health planning and management2018

A critical analysis of health care purchasing arrangements in Kenya: A case study of the county departments of health.

Rahab Mbau, Edwine Barasa, Kenneth Munge, Stephen Mulupi, Peter K Nguhiu, Jane Chuma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal of health planning and management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Purchasing reforms and tracking health resources, Kenya.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rahab MbauHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6705-049X
Edwine BarasaHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5793-7177
Kenneth MungeHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1525-8058
Stephen MulupiHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8533-578X
Peter K NguhiuHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0875-0549
Jane ChumaHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 092654Wellcome Trust 101082Wellcome Trust 107527
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPurchasing in health care financing refers to the transfer of pooled funds to health care providers for the provision of health care services. There is limited empirical work on purchasing arrangements and what is required for strategic purchasing in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted this study to critically assess the purchasing arrangements of the county departments of health (CDOH) who are the largest purchasers of health care in Kenya.

methodsWe used a qualitative case study approach to assess the extent to which the purchasing actions of the CDOH in Kenya were strategic. We purposively sampled 10 counties and collected data using in-depth interviews (n = 81), focus group discussions (n = 4), and documents review. We analyzed data using a framework approach.

resultsCounty departments of health did not practice strategic purchasing. The government's (national and county) role as a steward for the purchasing function was characterized by poor accountability and inadequate budgetary allocations for service delivery. The absence of a purchaser-provider split between the CDOH and public health care providers undermined provider selection based on performance and quality. Poor public participation and ineffective complaints and feedback mechanisms limited public accountability and responsiveness to the needs of the people.

conclusionOur findings show that while there are frameworks that could promote strategic purchasing of the CDOH, strategic purchasing is impaired by poor implementation of these frameworks and the inherent weaknesses of a public integrated purchasing system that lacks purchaser-provider split.

Indexed as

Financing, GovernmentInsurance, Health, ReimbursementLocal GovernmentPublic HealthFocus GroupsInterviews as TopicKenyaOrganizational Case StudiesQualitative Researchcounty departments of healthKenyastrategic purchasinguniversal health coverage

Identifiers

PMID30074642
PMCPMC6492197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.