No abstract

No abstract

This paper reports on income generation practices among civil servants in the health sector, with a particular emphasis on dual practice. It first approaches the subject of public–private overlap. Thereafter it focuses on coping strategies in general and then on dual practice in particular.To compensate for unrealistically low salaries, health workers rely on individual coping strategies. Many clinicians combine salaried, public-sector clinical work with a fee-for-service private clientele. This dual practice is often a means by which health workers try to meet their survival needs, reflecting the inability of health ministries to ensure adequate salaries and working conditions.Dual practice may be considered present in most countries, if not all. Nevertheless, there is surprisingly little hard evidence about the extent to which health workers resort to dual practice, about the balance of economic and other motives for doing so, or about the consequences for the proper use of the scarce public resources dedicated to health.In this paper dual practice is approached from six different perspectives: (1) conceptual, regarding what is meant by dual practice; (2) descriptive, trying to develop a typology of dual practices; (3) quantitative, trying to determine its prevalence; (4) impact on personal income, the health care system and health status; (5) qualitative, looking at the reasons why practitioners so frequently remain in public practice while also working in the private sector and at contextual, personal life, institutional and professional factors that make it easier or more difficult to have dual practices; and (6) possible interventions to deal with dual practice.

a b s t r a c tIt has been 30 years since the Declaration of Alma Ata. During that time, primary care has been the central strategy for expanding health services in many low-and middle-income countries. The recent global calls to redouble support for primary care highlighted it as a pathway to reaching the health Millennium Development Goals. In this systematic review we described and assessed the contributions of major primary care initiatives implemented in low-and middle-income countries in the past 30 years to a broad range of health system goals. The scope of the programs reviewed was substantial, with several interventions implemented on a national scale. We found that the majority of primary care programs had multiple components from health service delivery to financing reform to building community demand for health care. Although given this integration and the variable quality of the available research it was difficult to attribute effects to the primary care component alone, we found that primary care-focused health initiatives in low-and middle-income countries have improved access to health care, including among the poor, at reasonably low cost. There is also evidence that primary care programs have reduced child mortality and, in some cases, wealth-based disparities in mortality. Lastly, primary care has proven to be an effective platform for health system strengthening in several countries. Future research should focus on understanding how to optimize the delivery of primary care to improve health and achieve other health system objectives (e.g., responsiveness, efficiency) and to what extent models of care can be exported to different settings.