Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32958000›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2020

Tracking health sector priority setting processes and outcomes for human resources for health, five-years after political devolution: a county-level case study in Kenya.

Joshua Munywoki, Nancy Kagwanja, Jane Chuma, Jacinta Nzinga, Edwine Barasa, Benjamin Tsofa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Joshua MunywokiKEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, KEMRI Centre for Geographic Medicine Research Coast, Kilifi, Kenya. munywoki.joshua.m@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2771-8106
Nancy KagwanjaKEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, KEMRI Centre for Geographic Medicine Research Coast, Kilifi, Kenya.
Jane ChumaKEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, KEMRI Centre for Geographic Medicine Research Coast, Kilifi, Kenya.
Jacinta NzingaKEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, KEMRI Centre for Geographic Medicine Research Coast, Kilifi, Kenya.
Edwine BarasaKEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, KEMRI Centre for Geographic Medicine Research Coast, Kilifi, Kenya.
Benjamin TsofaKEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, KEMRI Centre for Geographic Medicine Research Coast, Kilifi, Kenya. BTsofa@kemri-wellcome.org.

Funding

EPA EP-C-15-003Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203077/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth sector priority setting in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) entails balancing between a high demand and low supply of scarce resources. Human Resources for Health (HRH) consume the largest allocation of health sector resources in LMICs. Health sector decentralization continues to be promoted for its perceived ability to improve efficiency, relevance and participation in health sector priority setting. Following the 2013 devolution in Kenya, both health service delivery and human resource management were decentralized to county level. Little is known about priority setting practices and outcomes of HRH within decentralized health systems in LMICs. Our study sought to examine if and how the Kenyan devolution has improved health sector priority setting practices and outcomes for HRH.

methodsWe used a mixed methods case study design to examine health sector priority setting practices and outcomes at county level in Kenya. We used three sources of data. First, we reviewed all relevant national and county level policy and guidelines documents relating to HRH management. We then accessed and reviewed county records of HRH recruitment and distribution between 2013 and 2018. We finally conducted eight key informant interviews with various stakeholder involved in HRH priority setting within our study county.

resultsWe found that HRH numbers in the county increased by almost two-fold since devolution. The county had two forms of HRH recruitment: one led by the County Public Services Board as outlined by policy and guidelines and a parallel, politically-driven recruitment done directly by the County Department of Health. Though there were clear guidelines on HRH recruitment, there were no similar guidelines on allocation and distribution of HRH. Since devolution, the county has preferentially staffed higher level hospitals over primary care facilities. Additionally, there has been local county level innovations to address some HRH management challenges, including recruiting doctors and other highly specialized staff on fixed term contract as opposed to permanent basis; and implementation of local incentives to attract and retain HRH to remote areas within the county.

conclusionDevolution has significantly increased county level decision-space for HRH priority setting in Kenya. However, HRH management and accountability challenges still exist at the county level. There is need for interventions to strengthen county level HRH management capacity and accountability mechanisms beyond additional resources allocation. This will boost the realization of the country's efforts for promoting service delivery equity as a key goal - both for the devolution and the country's quest towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC).

Indexed as

Health Care RationingPoliticsDelivery of Health CareHealth PrioritiesHumansKenyaSocial ResponsibilityWorkforceDecision spaceHealth system decentralisationHuman resources for healthPriority setting

Identifiers

PMID32958000
PMCPMC7507677

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.