Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35907964›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2022

Assessing the scalability of a health management-strengthening intervention at the district level: a qualitative study in Ghana, Malawi and Uganda.

Susan Bulthuis, Maryse Kok, Olivier Onvlee, Tim Martineau, Joanna Raven, Freddie Ssengooba, Justine Namakula, Hastings Banda, Patricia Akweongo, Marjolein Dieleman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Susan BulthuisKIT Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.bulthuis@kit.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6741-0790
Maryse KokKIT Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Olivier OnvleeKIT Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tim MartineauLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Joanna RavenLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Freddie SsengoobaMakerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Justine NamakulaMakerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Hastings BandaResearch for Equity and Community Health (REACH) Trust, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Patricia AkweongoDepartment of Health Policy, Planning & Management. School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana.
Marjolein DielemanKIT Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 733360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe scale-up of successfully tested public health interventions is critical to achieving universal health coverage. To ensure optimal use of resources, assessment of the scalability of an intervention is recognized as a crucial step in the scale-up process. This study assessed the scalability of a tested health management-strengthening intervention (MSI) at the district level in Ghana, Malawi and Uganda.

methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with intervention users (district health management teams, DHMTs) and implementers of the scale-up of the intervention (national-level actors) in Ghana, Malawi and Uganda, before and 1 year after the scale-up had started. To assess the scalability of the intervention, the CORRECT criteria from WHO/ExpandNet were used during analysis.

resultsThe MSI was seen as credible, as regional- and national-level Ministry of Health officials were championing the intervention. While documented evidence on intervention effectiveness was limited, district- and national-level stakeholders seemed to be convinced of the value of the intervention. This was based on its observed positive results regarding management competencies, teamwork and specific aspects of health workforce performance and service delivery. The perceived need for strengthening of management capacity and service delivery showed the relevance of the intervention, and relative advantages of the intervention were its participatory and sustainable nature. Turnover within the DHMTs and limited (initial) management capacity were factors complicating implementation. The intervention was not contested and was seen as compatible with (policy) priorities at the national level.

conclusionWe conclude that the MSI is scalable. However, to enhance its scalability, certain aspects should be adapted to better fit the context in which the intervention is being scaled up. Greater involvement of regional and national actors alongside improved documentation of results of the intervention can facilitate scale-up. Continuous assessment of the scalability of the intervention with all stakeholders involved is necessary, as context, stakeholders and priorities may change. Therefore, adaptations of the intervention might be required. The assessment of scalability, preferably as part of the monitoring of a scale-up strategy, enables critical reflections on next steps to make the intervention more scalable and the scale-up more successful.

Indexed as

Universal Health InsuranceGhanaHumansMalawiQualitative ResearchUgandaCORRECT attributesGhanaMalawiManagement-strengthening interventionScalabilityScale-upUganda

Identifiers

PMID35907964
PMCPMC9338559

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.