Background: Kenya introduced a free maternity policy in 2013 to address the cost barrier associated with accessing maternal health services. We carried out a mixed methods process evaluation of the policy to examine the extent to which the policy had been implemented according to design, and positive experiences and challenges encountered during implementation. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study in 3 purposely selected counties in Kenya. Data were collected through in-depth interviews (IDIs) with policy-makers at the national level, health managers at the county level, and frontline staff at the health facility level (n=60), focus group discussions (FGDs) with community representatives (n=10), facility records, and document reviews. We analysed the data using a framework approach. Results: Rapid implementation led to inadequate stakeholder engagement and confusion about the policy. While the policy was meant to cover antenatal visits, deliveries, and post-natal visits, in practice the policy only covered deliveries. While the policy led to a rapid increase in facility deliveries, this was not matched by an increase in health facility capacity and hence compromised quality of care. The policy led to an improvement in the level of revenues for facilities. However, in all three counties, reimbursements were not made on time. The policy did not have a system of verifying health facility reports on utilization of services. Conclusion: The Kenyan Ministry of Health (MoH) should develop a formal policy on the free maternity services, and provide clear guidelines on its content and implementation arrangements, engage with and effectively communicate the policy to stakeholders, ensure timeliness of payment disbursement to healthcare facilities, and introduce a mechanism for verifying utilization reports prepared by healthcare providers. User fee removal policies such as free maternity programmes should be accompanied by supply side capacity strengthening.

Patient–centered care (PCC) is increasingly recognized as a key dimension of quality healthcare, but unfortunately remains poorly implemented in practice. This paper explores the current state of PCC in sub-Saharan Africa and potential barriers to its implementation, with a focus on public first line health services. We develop an analytical framework based on expert knowledge, field experience, and a conceptual literature review. Factors contributing to the (lack of) implementation of PCC are structured in three distinct but interacting layers. The first layer encompasses factors that influence and shape the performance of providers.  The training of health workers is key in that respect. Training models remain dominated by a biomedical perspective, with little attention for psychosocial dimensions of the illness experience. The second layer of determinants relates to the structural and organizational features of the health system. The emphasis in many African health care systems on specific programmatic outputs, and the subsequent pressure this creates on health workers,  jeopardize the delivery of PCC. The third layer is related to the broader socioeconomic environment in which health workers operate. Noteworthy is the gap between the “official” norms in the public sector and the actual behavior of providers. We then propose  possible avenues for change for each of these three layers. We conclude by arguing the need for further fine-tuning of the framework outlined in this paper, investing in the contextual validation of measurement tools for PCC, and testing solutions in a participatory action research framework.

BackgroundCommunity participation in peripheral public health facilities has in many countries focused on including community representatives in Health Facility Management Committees (HFMCs). In Kenya, HFMC roles are being expanded with the phased implementation of the Health Sector Services Fund (HSSF). Under HSSF, HFMCs manage facility funds which are dispersed directly from central level into facility bank accounts. We assessed how prepared HFMCs were to undertake this new role in advance of HSSF roll out, and considered the implications for Kenya and other similar settings.MethodsData were collected through a nationally representative sample of 248 public health centres and dispensaries in 24 districts in 2010. Data collection included surveys with in-charges (n = 248), HFMC members (n = 464) and facility users (n = 698), and record reviews. These data were supplemented by semi-structured interviews with district health managers in each district.ResultsSome findings supported preparedness of HFMCs to take on their new roles. Most facilities had bank accounts and HFMCs which met regularly. HFMC members and in-charges generally reported positive relationships, and HFMC members expressed high levels of motivation and job satisfaction. Challenges included users’ low awareness of HFMCs, lack of training and clarity in roles among HFMCs, and some indications of strained relations with in-charges. Such challenges are likely to be common to many similar settings, and are therefore important considerations for any health facility based initiatives involving HFMCs.ConclusionMost HFMCs have the basic requirements to operate. However to manage their own budgets effectively and meet their allocated roles in HSSF implementation, greater emphasis is needed on financial management training, targeted supportive supervision, and greater community awareness and participation. Once new budget management roles are fully established, qualitative and quantitative research on how HFMCs are adapting to their expanded roles, especially in financial management, would be valuable in informing similar financing mechanisms in Kenya and beyond.

In many African countries, user fees have failed to achieve intended access and quality of care improvements. Subsequent user fee reduction or elimination policies have often been poorly planned, without alternative sources of income for facilities. We describe early implementation of an innovative national health financing intervention in Kenya; the health sector services fund (HSSF). In HSSF, central funds are credited directly into a facility’s bank account quarterly, and facility funds are managed by health facility management committees (HFMCs) including community representatives. HSSF is therefore a finance mechanism with potential to increase access to funds for peripheral facilities, support user fee reduction and improve equity in access. We conducted a process evaluation of HSSF implementation based on a theory of change underpinning the intervention. Methods included interviews at national, district and facility levels, facility record reviews, a structured exit survey and a document review. We found impressive achievements: HSSF funds were reaching facilities; funds were being overseen and used in a way that strengthened transparency and community involvement; and health workers’ motivation and patient satisfaction improved. Challenges or unintended outcomes included: complex and centralized accounting requirements undermining efficiency; interactions between HSSF and user fees leading to difficulties in accessing crucial user fee funds; and some relationship problems between key players. Although user fees charged had not increased, national reduction policies were still not being adhered to. Finance mechanisms can have a strong positive impact on peripheral facilities, and HFMCs can play a valuable role in managing facilities. Although fiduciary oversight is essential, mechanisms should allow for local decision-making and ensure that unmanageable paperwork is avoided. There are also limits to what can be achieved with relatively small funds in contexts of enormous need. Process evaluations tracking (un)intended consequences of interventions can contribute to regional financing and decentralization debates.

Background Patient-centered care (PCC) offers opportunities for African health systems to improve quality of care. Nonetheless, PCC continually faces implementation challenges. In 2015, Uganda introduced PCC as a concept in their national quality improvement guidelines. In order to investigate whether and how this is implemented in practice, this study aims to identify relevant stakeholders’ views on the current quality of primary health care services and their understanding of PCC. This is an important step in understanding how the concept of PCC can be implemented in a resource constrained, sub-Saharan context like Uganda. Methods This qualitative study was conducted in Uganda at national, district and facility level, with a focus on three public and three private health centres. Data collection consisted of in-depth interviews (n = 49); focus group discussions (n = 7); and feedback meetings (n = 14) across the four main categories of stakeholders identified: patients/communities, health workers, policy makers and academia. Interviews and discussions explored stakeholder perceptions on the interpersonal aspects of quality primary health care and meanings attached to the concept of PCC. A content analysis of Ugandan policy documents mentioning PCC was also conducted. Thematic content analysis was conducted using NVivo 11 to organize and analyze the data. Findings and conclusion While Ugandan stakeholder groups have varying perceptions of PCC, they agree on the following: the need to involve patients in making decisions about their health, the key role of healthcare workers in that endeavor, and the importance of context in designing and implementing solutions. For that purpose, three avenues are recommended: Firstly, fora that include a wide range of stakeholders may offer a powerful opportunity to gain an inclusive vision on PCC in Uganda. Secondly, efforts need to be made to ensure that improved communication and information sharing–important components of PCC–translate to actual shared decision making. Lastly, the Ugandan health system needs to strengthen its engagement of the transformation from a community health worker system to a more comprehensive community health system. Cross-cutting the entire analysis, is the need to address, in a culturally-sensitive way, the many structural barriers in designing and implementing PCC policies. This is essential in ensuring the sustainable and effective implementation of PCC approaches in low- and middle-income contexts.

With user fees now seen as a major hindrance to universal health coverage, many countries have introduced fee reduction or elimination policies, but there is growing evidence that adherence to reduced fees is often highly imperfect. In 2004, Kenya adopted a reduced and uniform user fee policy providing fee exemptions to many groups. We present data on user fee implementation, revenue and expenditure from a nationally representative survey of Kenyan primary health facilities. Data were collected from 248 randomly selected public health centres and dispensaries in 2010, comprising an interview with the health worker in charge, exit interviews with curative outpatients, and a financial record review. Adherence to user fee policy was assessed for eight tracer conditions based on health worker reports, and patients were asked about actual amounts paid. No facilities adhered fully to the user fee policy across all eight tracers, with adherence ranging from 62.2% for an adult with tuberculosis to 4.2% for an adult with malaria. Three quarters of exit interviewees had paid some fees, with a median payment of US dollars (USD) 0.39, and a quarter of interviewees were required to purchase additional medical supplies at a later stage from a private drug retailer. No consistent pattern of association was identified between facility characteristics and policy adherence. User fee revenues accounted for almost all facility cash income, with average revenue of USD 683 per facility per year. Fee revenue was mainly used to cover support staff, non-drug supplies and travel allowances. Adherence to user fee policy was very low, leading to concerns about the impact on access and the financial burden on households. However, the potential to ensure adherence was constrained by the facilities’ need for revenue to cover basic operating costs, highlighting the need for alternative funding strategies for peripheral health facilities.

There is a growing interest in the ethics of Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR), and especially in areas that have particular ethical salience across HPSR. Hyder et al (2014) provide an initial framework to consider this, and call for more conceptual and empirical work. In this paper, we respond by examining the ethical issues that arose for researchers over the course of conducting three HPSR studies in Kenya in which health managers and providers were key participants. All three studies involved qualitative work including observations and individual and group interviews. Many of the ethical dilemmas researchers faced only emerged over the course of the fieldwork, or on completion, and were related to interactions and relationships between individuals operating at different levels or positions in health/research systems. The dilemmas reveal significant ethical challenges for these forms of HPSR, and show that potential 'solutions' to dilemmas often lead to new issues and complications. Our experiences support the value of research ethics frameworks, and suggest that these can be enriched by incorporating careful consideration of context embedded social relations into research planning and conduct. Many of these essential relational elements of ethical practice, and of producing quality data, are given stronger emphasis in social science research ethics than in epidemiological, clinical or biomedical research ethics, and are particularly relevant where health systems are understood as social and political constructs. We conclude with practical and research implications.

IntroductionEquitable access to health care is a key health systems goal, and is a particular concern in low-income countries. In Kenya, public facilities are an important resource for the poor, but little is known on the equity of service provision. This paper assesses whether poorer areas have poorer health services by investigating associations between public facility characteristics and the poverty level of the area in which the facility is located.MethodsData on facility characteristics were collected from a nationally representative sample of public health centers and dispensaries across all 8 provinces in Kenya. A two-stage cluster randomized sampling process was used to select facilities. Univariate associations between facility characteristics and socioeconomic status (SES) of the area in which the facility was located were assessed using chi-squared tests, equity ratios and concentration indices. Indirectly standardized concentration indices were used to assess the influence of SES on facility inputs and service availability while controlling for facility type, province, and remoteness.ResultsFor most indicators, we found no indication of variation by SES. The clear exceptions were electricity and laboratory services which showed evidence of pro-rich inequalities, with equity ratios of 3.16 and 3.43, concentration indices of 0.09 (p<0.01) and 0.05 (p=0.01), and indirectly standardized concentration ratios of 0.07 (p<0.01) and 0.05 (p=0.01). There were also some indications of pro-rich inequalities for availability of drugs and qualified staff. The lack of evidence of inequality for other indicators does not imply that availability of inputs and services was invariably high; for example, while availability was close to 90% for water supply and family planning services, under half of facilities offered delivery services or outreach.ConclusionsThe paper shows how local area poverty data can be combined with national health facility surveys, providing a tool for policy makers to assess the equity of input and service availability. There was little evidence of inequalities for most inputs and services, with the clear exceptions of electricity and laboratory services. However, efforts are required to improve the availability of key inputs and services across public facilities in all areas, regardless of SES.