ArticleBMC public health2024
National Rural Health Mission reforms in light of decentralised planning in Kerala, India: a realist analysis of data from three witness seminars.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe People's Planning Campaign (PPC) in the southern Indian state of Kerala started in 1996, following which the state devolved functions, finances, and functionaries to Local Self-Governments (LSGs). The erstwhile National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), subsequently renamed the National Health Mission (NHM) was a large-scale, national architectural health reform launched in 2005. How decentralisation and NRHM interacted and played out at the ground level is understudied. Our study aimed to fill this gap, privileging the voices and perspectives of those directly involved with this history.
methodsWe employed the Witness Seminar (WS), an oral history technique where witnesses to history together reminisce about historical events and their significance as a matter of public record. Three virtual WS comprised of 23 participants (involved with the PPC, N(R)HM, civil society, and the health department) were held from June to Sept 2021. Inductive thematic analysis of transcripts was carried out by four researchers using ATLAS. ti 9. WS transcripts were analyzed using a realist approach, meaning we identified Contexts, Mechanisms, and Outcomes (CMO) characterising NRHM health reform in the state as they related to decentralised planning.
resultsTwo CMO configurations were identified, In the first one, witnesses reflected that decentralisation reforms empowered LSGs, democratised health planning, brought values alignment among health system actors, and equipped communities with the tools to identify local problems and solutions. Innovation in the health sector by LSGs was nurtured and incentivised with selected programs being scaled up through N(R)HM. The synergy of the decentralised planning process and N(R)HM improved health infrastructure, human resources and quality of care delivered by the state health system. The second configuration suggested that community action for health was reanimated in the context of the emergence of climate change-induced disasters and communicable diseases. In the long run, N(R)HM's frontline health workers, ASHAs, emerged as leaders in LSGs.
conclusionThe synergy between decentralised health planning and N(R)HM has significantly shaped and impacted the health sector, leading to innovative and inclusive programs that respond to local health needs and improved health system infrastructure. However, centralised health planning still belies the ethos and imperative of decentralisation - these contradictions may vex progress going forward and warrant further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.