IntroductionHealth Management Information Systems (HMIS) are vital to ensure accountability and for making decisions including for tracking the Sustainable Development Goals. The Ethiopia Health Sector Transformation Plan II includes preventing data falsification as a major strategic initiative and our study aimed to explore the reasons why healthcare providers intentionally falsify maternal and newborn health (MNH) data in two regions of Ethiopia.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study in two hospitals, four health centres and their associated health posts in Oromia and Amhara regions. We conducted 45 in-depth interviews with health facility managers, quality improvement (QI) focal persons, health information technicians, MNH care providers, Health Extension Workers and QI mentors. Data were collected in local languages and transcribed in English. During analysis we repeatedly read the transcripts, coded them inductively using NVivo V.12, and categorised the codes into themes.ResultsParticipants were hesitant to report personal data falsification but many reported that falsification is common and that they had experienced it in other facilities or had been told about it by other health workers. Falsification was mostly inflating the number of services provided (such as deliveries). Decreasing the number of deaths or reclassifying neonatal death into stillbirths was also reported. An overarching theme was that the health system focuses on, and rewards, the number of services provided over any other metric. This focus led to both system and individual level incentives for falsification and disincentives for accurate reporting.ConclusionOur finding suggests that to reduce facility level data falsification policy makers might consider disentangling reward and punishments from the performance reports based on the routine HMIS data. Further studies examining the high-level drivers of falsification at regional, national and global levels and effective interventions to address the drivers of data falsification are needed.

Context: Men who have sex with men (MSM) in Senegal face a challenging socio-legal context, marked by homophobia and the illegality of homosexuality. In addition, HIV prevalence among MSM is 27.6%, 46 times greater than the one in the general population (0.5%). Nevertheless, access to health care by MSM may be hampered by stigmatising attitudes from health facility staff (medical and non-medical). Aims and Methods: This article describes the health facility staff/MSM relationship and analyses its effects on access to healthcare by MSM. The data used was collected through a field survey based on observations and qualitative interviews conducted in 2019 and 2020 with 16 MSM, 1 NGO staff and 9 health care providers in Dakar (the capital city) and Mbour (secondary city on the West Coast) hospitals. The data was subject to a thematic analysis assisted by the ATLAS software. Results: The relationship between MSM and health care providers is ambiguous. On the one hand, health care providers are torn between their professional duty to treat MSM and the cost of being stigmatised by other colleagues. Therefore, they often limit their empathy with MSM within the hospital context. On the other hand, MSM, trusting in the confidentiality of health care providers, feel safe in the care pathway. However, we identify the following stigmatising factors limiting access to care include: (1) fear of meeting a relative, (2) difficult relationships with non-medical support staff (mainly security guards), (3) HIV status disclosure and (4) potential conflicts with other MSM. Conclusion: This study is unique as it includes non-medical staff in its respondents. It shows that hospitals are divided into several areas, based on the stigma perceived by MSM. It is important to map out MSM’s care trajectories and spaces and to identify all types of staff working within them, including non-medical staff, and enrol them in stigma reduction interventions.

The growing involvement of anthropologists in medical humanitarian response efforts has laid bare the moral and ethical consequences that emerge from humanitarian action. Anthropologists are well placed to examine the social, political, cultural and economic dimensions that influence the spread of diseases, and the ways in which to respond to epidemics. Anthropologists are also, with care, able to turn a critical lens on medical humanitarian response. However, there remains some resistance to involving anthropologists in response activities in the field. Drawing on interviews with anthropologists and humanitarian workers involved in the 2014-2016 West African Ebola epidemic, this paper reveals the complex roles taken on by anthropologists in the field and reveals how anthropologists faced questions of legitimacy vis-à-vis communities and responders in their roles in response activities, which focused on acting as 'firefighters' and 'cultural brokers' as well as legitimacy as academic researchers. Whilst these anthropologists were able to conduct research alongside these activities, or draw on anthropological knowledge to inform response activities, questions also arose about the legitimacy of these roles for anthropological academia. We conclude that the process of gaining legitimacy from all these different constituencies is particular to anthropologists and reveals the role of 'giving voice' to communities alongside critiquing medical humanitarianism. Whilst these anthropologists have strengthened the argument for the involvement of anthropologists in epidemic response this anthropological engagement with medical humanitarianism has revealed theoretical considerations more broadly for the discipline, as highlighted through engagement in other fields, especially in human rights and global health.

ObjectivesTo gather evidence on whether a brief intervention (Apprendre en paix et éduquer sans violence, developed by the Ivorian Ministry of Education and Graines de Paix) to promote peace in primary schools by reducing teacher violence perpetration and improving pedagogical techniques was acceptable to teachers and affected change in intermediate outcomes.DesignMixed-methods formative research.SettingPrimary schools in Tonkpi region, Cote d’Ivoire.Participants160 teachers participating in the peace training, surveyed three times during implementation; qualitative in-depth interviews with 19 teachers and teacher-counsellors.InterventionsLearn in peace, educate without violence–a brief intervention with primary school teachers designed to promote peace in primary schools.OutcomesFor survey data, we generated composite measures of intermediate outcomes (teachers’ awareness of consequences of violence, self-efficacy in applying positive classroom management methods, acceptance of physical discipline practices in school) and used random intercept linear mixed-effects models to compare responses over time. Qualitative research included open-ended questions about acceptability and perceived need for such an intervention. A framework analysis was undertaken.ResultsFour-months post-training (vs pretraining), teachers had higher self-efficacy in applying positive classroom management methods (pre-mean=26.1; post-mean=27.5; p<0.001) and borderline lower acceptance of physical discipline practices (premean=4.2; postmean=3.6; p=0.10). We found no change in teacher awareness of the consequences of violence. Qualitatively, teachers found the intervention acceptable and understandable, perceiving it as useful because it provided methods for non-violent discipline. Teachers had mixed views about whether the techniques improved classroom dynamics.ConclusionsData suggest that the intervention is acceptable and leads to change in intermediate outcomes for teachers. Further evaluation in a randomised controlled trial is warranted.

services to more systematically target social needs and to share power through partnership working may reduce the mistrust that many with psychosis feel when entering services and in turn reduce persistent inequalities across ethnic groups.

Background Quality improvement collaboratives are a common approach to bridging the quality-of-care gap, but little is known about implementation in low-income settings. Implementers rarely consider mechanisms of change or the role of context, which may explain collaboratives’ varied impacts. Methods To understand mechanisms and contextual influences we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with staff from four health centres and two hospitals involved in quality improvement collaboratives in Ethiopia. We also generated control charts for selected indicators to explore any impacts of the collaboratives. Results The cross facility learning sessions increased the prominence and focus on quality, allowed learning from experts and peers and were motivational through public recognition of success or a desire to emulate peers. Within facilities, new structures and processes were created. These were fragile and sometimes alienating to those outside the improvement team. The trusted and respected mentors were important for support, motivation and accountability. Where mentor visits were infrequent or mentors less skilled, team function was impacted. These mechanisms were more prominent, and quality improvement more functional, in facilities with strong leadership and pre-existing good teamwork; as staff had shared goals, an active approach to problems and were more willing and able to be flexible to implement change ideas. Quality improvement structures and processes were more likely to be internally driven and knowledge transferred to other staff in these facilities, which reduced the impact of staff turnover and increased buy-in. In facilities which lacked essential inputs, staff struggled to see how the collaborative could meaningfully improve quality and were less likely to have functioning quality improvement. The unexpected civil unrest in one region strongly disrupted the health system and the collaborative. These contextual issues were fluid, with multiple interactions and linkages. Conclusions The study confirms the need to carefully consider context in the implementation of quality improvement collaboratives. Facilities that implement quality improvement successfully may be those that already have characteristics that foster quality. Quality improvement may be alienating to those outside of the improvement team and implementers should not assume the organic spread or transfer of quality improvement knowledge.