BackgroundCommunity participation is a major principle of people centered health systems, with considerable research highlighting its intrinsic value and strategic importance. Existing reviews largely focus on the effectiveness of community participation with less attention to how community participation is supported in health systems intervention research.ObjectiveTo explore the extent, nature and quality of community participation in health systems intervention research in low- and middle-income countries.MethodologyWe searched for peer-reviewed, English language literature published between January 2000 and May 2012 through four electronic databases. Search terms combined the concepts of community, capability/participation, health systems research and low- and middle-income countries. The initial search yielded 3,092 articles, of which 260 articles with more than nominal community participation were identified and included. We further excluded 104 articles due to lower levels of community participation across the research cycle and poor description of the process of community participation. Out of the remaining 160 articles with rich community participation, we further examined 64 articles focused on service delivery and governance within health systems research.ResultsMost articles were led by authors in high income countries and many did not consistently list critical aspects of study quality. Articles were most likely to describe community participation in health promotion interventions (78%, 202/260), even though they were less participatory than other health systems areas. Community involvement in governance and supply chain management was less common (12%, 30/260 and 9%, 24/260 respectively), but more participatory. Articles cut across all health conditions and varied by scale and duration, with those that were implemented at national scale or over more than five years being mainstreamed by government. Most articles detailed improvements in service availability, accessibility and acceptability, with fewer efforts focused on quality, and few designs able to measure impact on health outcomes. With regards to participation, most articles supported community’s in implementing interventions (95%, n = 247/260), in contrast to involving communities in identifying and defining problems (18%, n = 46/260). Many articles did not discuss who in communities participated, with just over a half of the articles disaggregating any information by sex. Articles were largely under theorized, and only five mentioned power or control. Majority of the articles (57/64) described community participation processes as being collaborative with fewer describing either community mobilization or community empowerment. Intrinsic individual motivations, community-level trust, strong external linkages, and supportive institutional processes facilitated community participation, while lack of training, interest and information, along with weak financial sustainability were challenges. Supportive contextual factors included decentralization...

Power is a critical concept to understand and transform health policy and systems. Power manifests implicitly or explicitly at multiple levels-local, national and global-and is present at each actor interface, therefore shaping all actions, processes and outcomes. Analysing and engaging with power has important potential for improving our understanding of the underlying causes of inequity, and our ability to promote transparency, accountability and fairness. However, the study and analysis of the role of power in health policy and systems, particularly in the context of low- and middle-income countries, has been lacking. In order to facilitate greater engagement with the concept of power among researchers and practitioners in the health systems and policy realm, we share a broad overview of the concept of power, and list 10 excellent resources on power in health policy and systems in low- and middle-income countries, covering exemplary frameworks, commentaries and empirical work. We undertook a two-stage process to identify these resources. First, we conducted a collaborative exercise involving crowdsourcing and participatory validation, resulting in 24 proposed articles. Second, we conducted a structured literature review in four phases, resulting in 38 articles reviewed. We present the 10 selected resources in the following categories to bring out key facets of the literature on power and health policy and systems-(1) Resources that provide an overarching conceptual exploration into how power shapes health policy and systems, and how to investigate it; and (2) examples of strong empirical work on power and health policy and systems research representing various levels of analyses, geographic regions and conceptual understandings of power. We conclude with a brief discussion of key gaps in the literature, and suggestions for additional methodological approaches to study power.

Power is a growing area of study for researchers and practitioners working in the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR). Theoretical development and empirical research on power are crucial for providing deeper, more nuanced understandings of the mechanisms and structures leading to social inequities and health disparities; placing contemporary policy concerns in a wider historical, political and social context; and for contributing to the (re)design or reform of health systems to drive progress towards improved health outcomes. Nonetheless, explicit analyses of power in HPSR remain relatively infrequent, and there are no comprehensive resources that serve as theoretical and methodological starting points. This paper aims to fill this gap by providing a consolidated guide to researchers wishing to consider, design and conduct power analyses of health policies or systems. This practice article presents a synthesis of theoretical and conceptual understandings of power; describes methodologies and approaches for conducting power analyses; discusses how they might be appropriately combined; and throughout reflects on the importance of engaging with positionality through reflexive praxis. Expanding research on power in health policy and systems will generate key insights needed to address underlying drivers of health disparities and strengthen health systems for all.

Anaesthesia is required for certain procedures in emergency obstetric care, such as caesarean section and the repair of ruptured uterus. Task shifting for provision of anaesthesia has been implemented in public sector rural hospitals of South Asia in recent years because of significant shortages of anaesthetists, but there has been limited research on this issue. This paper reviews the literature on this topic and documents existing programmes for task shifting anaesthesia services to mid-level providers in South Asia to increase access to emergency obstetric care and reduce maternal mortality. We found that task shifting of anaesthesia services has been effective in expanding coverage and access to care in South Asia, but most programmes have not been implemented systematically as part of an overall human resources strategy. A comprehensive approach, to maximise the benefits of these programmes, calls for countries to appoint a director at national or state level who is responsible for the availability of anaesthesia services in rural areas; legal protections, licensing by a competent authority and registration to perform anaesthesia services, including prescription of anaesthesia drugs; supportive managerial arrangements, competency-based training, monitoring and evaluation; performance rewards, career structure and job clarity; adequate equipment and supplies; support from specialist anaesthetists and quality assurance for safety.

BackgroundCommunity capability is the combined influence of a community’s social systems and collective resources that can address community problems and broaden community opportunities. We frame it as consisting of three domains that together support community empowerment: what communities have; how communities act; and for whom communities act. We sought to further understand these domains through a secondary analysis of a previous systematic review on community participation in health systems interventions in low and middle income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe searched for journal articles published between 2000 and 2012 related to the concepts of “community”, “capability/participation”, “health systems research” and “LMIC.” We identified 64 with rich accounts of community participation involving service delivery and governance in health systems research for thematic analysis following the three domains framing community capability.ResultsWhen considering what communities have, articles reported external linkages as the most frequently gained resource, especially when partnerships resulted in more community power over the intervention. In contrast, financial assets were the least mentioned, despite their importance for sustainability. With how communities act, articles discussed challenges of ensuring inclusive participation and detailed strategies to improve inclusiveness. Very little was reported about strengthening community cohesiveness and collective efficacy despite their importance in community initiatives. When reviewing for whom communities act, the importance of strong local leadership was mentioned frequently, while conflict resolution strategies and skills were rarely discussed.Synergies were found across these elements of community capability, with tangible success in one area leading to positive changes in another. Access to information and opportunities to develop skills were crucial to community participation, critical thinking, problem solving and ownership. Although there are many quantitative scales measuring community capability, health systems research engaged with community participation has rarely made use of these tools or the concepts informing them. Overall, the amount of information related to elements of community capability reported by these articles was low and often of poor quality.ConclusionsStrengthening community capability is critical to ensuring that community participation leads to genuine empowerment. Our simpler framework to define community capability may help researchers better recognize, support and assess it.

BackgroundThe importance of strong engagement between researchers and decision-makers in the improvement of health systems is increasingly being recognised in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In 2013, in India, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare began exploring the formation of a National Knowledge Platform (NKP) for guiding and supporting public health and health systems research in the country. The development of the NKP represents an important opportunity to enhance the linkage between policy-makers and researchers from the health policy and systems research field in India. However, the development process also reflects the highly complex reality of policy-making in the Indian health sector. Our objective is to provide insight into the policy-making process for establishing a health sector knowledge platform in India, and in doing so, to analyse the enabling contextual factors, the interests and actions of stakeholders, and the varying institutional arrangements explored in the development of the NKP.MethodsWe used a qualitative case study methodology, conducting 16 in-depth interviews and reviewing 42 documents. We utilised General Thematic Analysis to analyse our data. Our research team combined perspectives from both outsiders (independent researchers with no prior or current involvement with the policy) and insiders (researchers involved in the policy-making process).ResultsWe found that enabling contextual factors, and a combination of government and non-governmental stakeholders with core interests in public health and health systems, were able to gain considerable momentum in moving the idea for the NKP forward. However, complex evidence-to-policy processes in the Indian health sector resulted in complications in determining the right institutional arrangement for the platform. Establishing the appropriate balance between legitimacy and independence, as well as frequent changes in institutional leadership, were found to be additional issues that stakeholders contended with in building the NKP.ConclusionAs interest in platforms linking health sector policy-makers and researchers grows in LMICs, our findings may allow stakeholders to learn from the Indian experience thus far, and to anticipate some of the facilitators and barriers that could potentially arise in establishing such mechanisms.

Program managers should consider extending the duration of the program and placing more emphasis on practical training. Posting doctors with cooperative and performing EmOC providers will significantly improve the effectiveness of the program. A separate team of program managers who plan, monitor, and solve the problems reported by the trained MOs would further enhance the success of scaling up the training program.

BackgroundMedical specialization is a key feature of biomedicine, and is a growing, but weakly understood aspect of health systems in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including India. Emergency medicine is an example of a medical specialty that has been promoted in India by several high-income country stakeholders, including the Indian diaspora, through transnational and institutional partnerships. Despite the rapid evolution of emergency medicine in comparison to other specialties, this specialty has seen fragmentation in the stakeholder network and divergent training and policy objectives. Few empirical studies have examined the influence of stakeholders from high-income countries broadly, or of diasporas specifically, in transferring knowledge of medical specialization to LMICs. Using the concepts of socialization and legitimation, our goal is to examine the transfer of medical knowledge from high-income countries to LMICs through domestic, diasporic and foreign stakeholders, and the perceived impact of this knowledge on shaping health priorities in India.MethodsThis analysis was conducted as part of a broader study on the development of emergency medicine in India. We designed a qualitative case study focused on the early 1990s until 2015, analyzing data from in-depth interviewing (n = 87), document review (n = 248), and non-participant observation of conferences and meetings (n = 6).ResultsFrom the early 1990s, domestic stakeholders with exposure to emergency medicine in high-income countries began to establish Emergency Departments and initiate specialist training in the field. Their efforts were amplified by the active legitimation of emergency medicine by diasporic and foreign stakeholders, who formed transnational partnerships with domestic stakeholders and organized conferences, training programs and other activities to promote the field in India. However, despite a broad commitment to expanding specialist training, the network of domestic, diasporic and foreign stakeholders was highly fragmented, resulting in myriad unstandardized postgraduate training programs and duplicative policy agendas. Further, the focus in this time period was largely on training specialists, resulting in more emphasis on a medicalized, tertiary-level form of care.ConclusionsThis analysis reveals the complexities of the roles and dynamics of domestic, diasporic and foreign stakeholders in the evolution of emergency medicine in India. More research and critical analyses are required to explore the transfer of medical knowledge, such as other medical specialties, models of clinical care, and medical technologies, from high-income countries to India.