Political economy analysis of subnational health management in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda.

The need to bolster primary health care (PHC) to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets for health is well recognized. In Eastern and Southern Africa, where governments have progressively decentralized health decision-making, health management is critical to PHC performance. While investments in health management capacity are important, so is improving the environment in which managers operate. Governance arrangements, management systems and power dynamics of actors can have a significant influence on health managers' ability to improve PHC access and quality. We conducted a problem-driven political economy analysis (PEA) in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda to explore local decision-making environments and how they affect management and governance practices for health. This PEA used document review and key informant interviews (N = 112) with government actors, development partners and civil societies in three districts or counties in each country (N = 9). We found that while decentralization should improve PHC by supporting better decisions in line with local priorities from community input, it has been accompanied by thick bureaucracy, path-dependent and underfunded budgets that result in trade-offs and unfulfilled plans, management support systems that are less aligned to local priorities, weak accountability between local government and development partners, uneven community engagement and insufficient public administration capacity to negotiate these challenges. Emergent findings suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) not only resulted in greater pressures on health teams and budgets but also improved relations with central government related to better communication and flexible funding, offering some lessons. Without addressing the disconnection between the vision for decentralization and the reality of health managers mired in unhelpful processes and politics, delivering on PHC and universal health coverage goals and the SDG agenda will remain out of reach.

Everyday capabilities were a path to resilience during COVID-19: A case study of five countries.

COVID-19 demanded urgent responses by all countries, with wide variations in the scope and sustainability of those responses. Scholarship on resilience has increasingly emphasized relational considerations such as norms and power and how they influence health systems' responses to evolving challenges. In this study, we explored what influenced countries' national pandemic responses over time considering a country's capacity to test for COVID-19. To identify countries for inclusion, we used daily reports of COVID-19 cases and testing from 184 countries between January 21st, 2020 to December 31st, 2020. Countries reporting test data consistently and for at least 105 days were included, yielding a sample of 52 countries. We then sampled five countries representing different geographies, income levels, and governance structures (Belgium, Ethiopia, India, Israel, Peru) and conducted semi-structured key informant interviews with stakeholders working in, or deeply familiar, with national responses. Across these five countries, we found that existing health systems capacities and political leadership determined how responses unfolded, while emergency plans or pandemic preparedness documents were not fit-for-purpose. While all five countries were successful at reducing COVID-19 infections at a specific moment in the pandemic, political economy factors complicated the ability to sustain responses, with all countries experiencing larger waves of the virus in 2021 or 2022. Our findings emphasize the continued importance of foundational public health and health systems capacities, bolstered by clear leadership and multisectoral coordination functions. Even in settings with high-level political leadership and a strong multisectoral response, informants wished they-and their country's health system-were more prepared to address the pandemic and maintain an effective response over time. Our findings challenge emergency preparedness as the dominant frame in pandemic preparedness and call for a continued emphasis on health systems strengthening to respond to future health shocks-and a pandemic moving to endemic status.

30 years of polio campaigns in Ethiopia, India and Nigeria: the impacts of campaign design on vaccine hesitancy and health worker motivation.

INTRODUCTION: The debate over the impact of vertical programmes, including mass vaccination, on health systems is long-standing and often polarised. Studies have assessed the effects of a given vertical health programme on a health system separately from the goals of the vertical programme itself. Further, these health system effects are often categorised as either positive or negative. Yet health systems are in fact complex, dynamic and tightly linked. Relationships between elements of the system determine programme and system-level outcomes over time. METHODS: We constructed a causal loop diagram of the interactions between mass polio vaccination campaigns and government health systems in Ethiopia, India and Nigeria, working inductively from two qualitative datasets. The first dataset was 175 interviews conducted with policymakers, officials and frontline staff in these countries in 2011-2012. The second was 101 interviews conducted with similar groups in 2019, focusing on lessons learnt from polio eradication. RESULTS: Pursuing high coverage in polio campaigns, without considering the dynamic impacts of campaigns on health systems, cost campaign coverage gains over time in weaker health systems with many campaigns. Over time, the systems effects of frequent campaigns, delivered through parallel structures, led to a loss of frontline worker motivation, and an increase in vaccine hesitancy in recipient populations. Co-delivery of interventions helped to mitigate these negative effects. In stronger health systems with fewer campaigns, these issues did not arise. CONCLUSION: It benefits vertical programmes to reduce the construction of parallel systems and pursue co-delivery of interventions where possible, and to consider the workflow of frontline staff. Ultimately, for health campaign designs to be effective, they must make sense for those delivering and receiving campaign interventions, and must take into account the complex, adaptive nature of the health systems in which they operate. .