ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Understanding health system responsiveness to public feedback at the sub-national level: Insights from Kilifi County, Kenya.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Responsiveness is one of four health system goals alongside health outcomes, equity in financing and efficiency. Many studies examining responsiveness report a composite satisfaction index or proportions of patients describing satisfaction with dimensions of responsiveness. Consequently, responsiveness is predominantly based on collation of service users' feedback and could be termed service responsiveness. We conceptualise system responsiveness more broadly, as how the health system more widely responds to concerns or needs of the public. In this paper we share a system responsiveness framework to reflect this wider conceptualisation and illustrate how we used this framework combined with Aragon's insights on organisational capacity, to explore system responsiveness practices at sub-national level in Kenya. Drawing on interviews and group discussions we specifically consider how two governance structures -Health Facility Committees (HFCs) and Sub-County Health Management Teams (SCHMTs)- found in many Low-and-Middle-Income (LMIC) health systems receive, process, and respond to public feedback. HFCs are formal structures with community representation linked to a health facility to support community participation in service provision and health outcomes. SCHMTs comprise middle-level managers with oversight over primary health care facilities and are commonly known as district health management teams in other LMICs. There were multiple feedback mechanisms through which the health system could receive public feedback, but these mechanisms had limited functionality, often worked in isolation, and inadequately represented vulnerable groups. Our analysis also revealed the organisational capacity gaps that constrain health system responsiveness. These gaps ranged from inadequate funding and staffing of feedback mechanisms (hardware), through absence of clear procedures and guidelines (tangible software), to norms, actor relationships and power dynamics (intangible software elements). Our findings are relevant to similar low-and-middle-income contexts and draw attention to the importance of integrating multiple mechanisms and forms of feedback, alongside considering system capacities and their interactions, in strengthening health system responsiveness.
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.