Introduction Despite the growing global application of mobile health (mHealth) technology in maternal and child health, the contextual factors and mechanisms by which interventional outcomes are generated have not been subjected to extensive review. In this study, we sought to identify context, mechanisms and outcome elements from implementation and evaluation studies of mHealth interventions to formulate theories or models explicating how mHealth interventions work (or not) both for health care providers and for pregnant women and new mothers. Method An electronic search of six online databases (Medline, Pubmed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Academic Search Premier and Health Systems Evidence) was performed. Using appropriate MeSH terms and selection procedure, 32 articles were considered for analysis. A theory-driven approach, narrative synthesis, was applied to synthesise the data. Thematic content analysis was used to delineate the elements of the intervention, including its context, actors, mechanism and outcomes. Retroduction was applied to link these elements using a realist evaluation heuristic to form generative theories. Results Mechanisms that promote the implementation of mHealth by community health workers/health care providers include motivation, perceived skill and knowledge improvement, improved self-e cacy, improved con dence, improved relationship between community health workers and clients, perceived support of community health workers, perceived ease of use and usefulness of mHealth, For pregnant women and new mothers, mechanisms that trigger the uptake of mHealth and use of maternal and child health services included: perceived service satisfaction, perceived knowledge acquisition, support and con dence, improved self-e cacy, encouragement, empowerment and motivation. Information overload was identi ed as a potential negative mechanism for the uptake of maternal and child health services. Conclusion The models developed in this study provide a detailed understanding of the implementation and uptake of mHealth interventions and how they improve maternal and child health services in low and middle income countries. These models provide a foundation for the 'white box' or theory-driven evaluation of mHealth intervention and can improve the rollout and implementation where required.

BackgroundRealist evaluation offers an interesting approach to evaluation of interventions in complex settings, but has been little applied in health care. We report on a realist case study of a well performing hospital in Ghana and show how such a realist evaluation design can help to overcome the limited external validity of a traditional case study.MethodsWe developed a realist evaluation framework for hypothesis formulation, data collection, data analysis and synthesis of the findings. Focusing on the role of human resource management in hospital performance, we formulated our hypothesis around the high commitment management concept. Mixed methods were used in data collection, including individual and group interviews, observations and document reviews.ResultsWe found that the human resource management approach (the actual intervention) included induction of new staff, training and personal development, good communication and information sharing, and decentralised decision-making. We identified 3 additional practices: ensuring optimal physical working conditions, access to top managers and managers' involvement on the work floor. Teamwork, recognition and trust emerged as key elements of the organisational climate. Interviewees reported high levels of organisational commitment. The analysis unearthed perceived organisational support and reciprocity as underlying mechanisms that link the management practices with commitment.Methodologically, we found that realist evaluation can be fruitfully used to develop detailed case studies that analyse how management interventions work and in which conditions. Analysing the links between intervention, mechanism and outcome increases the explaining power, while identification of essential context elements improves the usefulness of the findings for decision-makers in other settings (external validity). We also identified a number of practical difficulties and priorities for further methodological development.ConclusionThis case suggests that a well-balanced HRM bundle can stimulate organisational commitment of health workers. Such practices can be implemented even with narrow decision spaces. Realist evaluation provides an appropriate approach to increase the usefulness of case studies to managers and policymakers.

No abstract

BackgroundUse of evidence in health policymaking plays an important role, especially in resource-constrained settings where informed decisions on resource allocation are paramount. Several knowledge translation (KT) models have been developed, but few have been applied to health policymaking in low income countries. If KT models are expected to explain evidence uptake and implementation, or lack of it, they must be contextualized and take into account the specificity of low income countries for example, the strong influence of donors. The main objective of this research is to elaborate a Middle Range Theory (MRT) of KT in Uganda that can also serve as a reference for other low- and middle income countries.MethodsThis two-step study employed qualitative approaches to examine the principal barriers and facilitating factors to KT. Step 1 involved a literature review and identification of common themes. The results informed the development of the initial MRT, which details the facilitating factors and barriers to KT at the different stages of research and policy development. In Step 2, these were further refined through key informant interviews with policymakers and researchers in Uganda. Deductive content and thematic analysis was carried out to assess the degree of convergence with the elements of the initial MRT and to identify other emerging issues.ResultsReview of the literature revealed that the most common emerging facilitating factors could be grouped under institutional strengthening for KT, research characteristics, dissemination, partnerships and political context. The analysis of interviews, however, showed that policymakers and researchers ranked institutional strengthening for KT, research characteristics and partnerships as the most important. New factors emphasized by respondents were the use of mainstreamed structures within MoH to coordinate and disseminate research, the separation of roles between researchers and policymakers, and the role of the community and civil society in KT.ConclusionsThis study refined an initial MRT on KT in policymaking in the health sector in Uganda that was based on a literature review. It provides a framework that can be used in empirical research of the process of KT on specific policy issues.

Bruno Marchal and colleagues argue that most current strategies aimed at health systems strengthening remain selectively targeted at specific diseases.

Realist evaluation submits that theories and models of how, why, for whom and under what circumstances programs work could be formulated by conceptualizing the relational links between the context within which programs are implemented, the generative mechanisms the programs trigger, and the outcomes of interest. Qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis allow for the description of the relevant context, the generative mechanisms, and the emergent outcomes of programs and provide explanatory power to link these elements. The ‘realist interviewing technique’, whereby interviewees comment on a suggested ‘program theory’ to provide refinement, is proposed as a distinctive approach for conducting interviews in a realist-informed inquiry. However, the application of this interviewing strategy within the realist evaluation studies is underutilized. In this study, we demonstrate how the realist interview technique reinforces and maintains theoretical awareness and contributes to trustworthiness through three theory-building phases: theory gleaning, theory refining, and theory consolidation.

BackgroundThe WHO health systems Building Blocks framework has become ubiquitous in health systems research. However, it was not developed as a research instrument, but rather to facilitate investments of resources in health systems. In this paper, we reflect on the advantages and limitations of using the framework in applied research, as experienced in three empirical vaccine studies we have undertaken.DiscussionWe argue that while the Building Blocks framework is valuable because of its simplicity and ability to provide a common language for researchers, it is not suitable for analysing dynamic, complex and inter-linked systems impacts. In our three studies, we found that the mechanical segmentation of effects by the WHO building blocks, without recognition of their interactions, hindered the understanding of impacts on systems as a whole. Other important limitations were the artificial equal weight given to each building block and the challenge in capturing longer term effects and opportunity costs. Another criticism is not of the framework per se, but rather how it is typically used, with a focus on the six building blocks to the neglect of the dynamic process and outcome aspects of health systems.We believe the framework would be improved by making three amendments: integrating the missing “demand” component; incorporating an overarching, holistic health systems viewpoint and including scope for interactions between components. If researchers choose to use the Building Blocks framework, we recommend that it be adapted to the specific study question and context, with formative research and piloting conducted in order to inform this adaptation.SummaryAs with frameworks in general, the WHO Building Blocks framework is valuable because it creates a common language and shared understanding. However, for applied research, it falls short of what is needed to holistically evaluate the impact of specific interventions on health systems. We propose that if researchers use the framework, it should be adapted and made context-specific.

This paper questions the view that performance-based financing (PBF) in the health sector is an effective, efficient and equitable approach to improving the performance of health systems in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). PBF was conceived as an open approach adapted to specific country needs, having the potential to foster system-wide reforms. However, as with many strategies and tools, there is a gap between what was planned and what is actually implemented. This paper argues that PBF as it is currently implemented in many contexts does not satisfy the promises. First, since the start of PBF implementation in LMICs, concerns have been raised on the basis of empirical evidence from different settings and disciplines that indicated the risks, cost and perverse effects. However, PBF implementation was rushed despite insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. Second, there is a lack of domestic ownership of PBF. Considering the amounts of time and money it now absorbs, and the lack of evidence of effectiveness and efficiency, PBF can be characterised as a donor fad. Third, by presenting itself as a comprehensive approach that makes it possible to address all aspects of the health system in any context, PBF monopolises attention and focuses policy dialogue on the short-term results of PBF programmes while diverting attention and resources from broader processes of change and necessary reforms. Too little care is given to system-wide and long-term effects, so that PBF can actually damage health services and systems. This paper ends by proposing entry points for alternative approaches.