The role of governance in shaping health system reform: a case study of the design and implementation of new health regions in Ireland, 2018-2023.

BACKGROUND: Effective governance arrangements are central to the successful functioning of health systems. While the significance of governance as a concept is acknowledged within health systems research, its interplay with health system reform initiatives remains underexplored in the literature. This study focuses on the development of new regional health structures in Ireland in the period 2018-2023, one part of a broader health system reform programme aimed at greater universalism, in order to scrutinise how aspects of governance impact on the reform process, from policy design through to implementation. METHODS: This qualitative, multi-method study draws on document analysis of official documents relevant to the reform process, as well as twelve semi-structured interviews with key informants from across the health sector. Interviews were analysed according to thematic analysis methodology. Conceiving governance as comprising five domains (Transparency, Accountability, Participation, Integrity, Capacity) the research uses the TAPIC framework for health governance as a conceptual starting point and as initial, deductive analytic categories for data analysis. RESULTS: The analysis reveals important lessons for policymakers across the five TAPIC domains of governance. These include deficiencies in accountability arrangements, poor transparency within the system and vis-à-vis external stakeholders and the public, and periods during which a lack of clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities for various process and key decisions related to the reform were identified. Inadequate resourcing of implementation capacity, competing policy visions and changing decision-making arrangements, among others, were found to have originated in and continuously reproduced a lack of trust between key institutional actors. The findings highlight how these challenges can be addressed through strengthening governance arrangements and processes. Importantly, the research reveals the interwoven nature of the five TAPIC dimensions of governance and the need to engage with the complexity and relationality of health system reform processes. CONCLUSIONS: Large scale health system reform is a complex process and its governance presents distinct challenges and opportunities for stakeholders. To understand and be able to address these, and to move beyond formulaic prescriptions, critical analysis of the historical context surrounding the policy reform and the institutional relationships at its core are needed.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.

Background: Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities. Objectives: We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice. Design: Realist review. Main outcome measures: Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria. Review methods: Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence. Results: Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships. Limitations: The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care. Conclusions: Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred. Future work: Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice. Study registration: This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Health inequalities are unfair differences in health across different groups of the population. In the United Kingdom, the health inequality gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest is increasing and is caused mostly by differences in long-term conditions like cancer and cardiovascular disease and respiratory conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Partly National Health Service inequalities arise in delays in seeing a doctor and care provided through doctors' surgery, such as delays in getting tests. This study explored how general practice services can increase or decrease inequalities in cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, under what circumstances and for whom. It also produced guidance for general practice, both local general practices and the wider general practice system, to reduce inequalities. We reviewed existing studies using a realist methodology. This methodology helps us understand the different contexts in which interventions work or not. We found that inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across different areas. These include funding and workforce, perceptions about health and disease among patients and healthcare staff, everyday procedures involved in care delivery, and relationships among individuals and communities. To reduce inequalities in general practice, action should be taken in all these areas and services need to be connected (i.e. linked and coordinated across the sector), intersectional (i.e. accounting for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics like their gender and socio-economic position), flexible (i.e. meeting patients' different needs and preferences), inclusive (i.e. not excluding people because of who they are) and community-centred (i.e. working with the people who will receive care when designing and providing it). There is no one single intervention that will make general practice more equitable, rather it requires long-term organisational change based on these principles.

How and why do financial incentives contribute to helping people stop smoking? A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking remains a key cause of preventable illness and death globally. In response, many countries provide extensive services to help people to stop smoking by offering a variety of effective behavioural and pharmacological therapies. However, many people who wish to stop smoking do not have access to or use stop smoking supports, and new modes of support, including the use of financial incentives, are needed to address this issue. A realist review of published international literature was undertaken to understand how, why, for whom, and in which circumstances financial incentives contribute to success in stopping smoking for general population groups and among pregnant women. METHODS: Systematic searches were undertaken from inception to February 2022 of five academic databases: MEDLINE (ovid), Embase.com, CIHAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO. Study selection was inclusive of all study designs. Twenty-two studies were included. Using Pawson and Tilley's iterative realist review approach, data collected were screened, selected, coded, analysed, and synthesised into a set of explanatory theoretical findings. RESULTS: Data were synthesised into six Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations and one overarching programme theory after iterative rounds of analysis, team discussion, and expert panel feedback. Our programme theory shows that financial incentives are particularly useful to help people stop smoking if they have a financial need, are pregnant or recently post-partum, have a high threshold for behaviour change, and/or respond well to external rewards. The incentives work through a number of mechanisms including the role their direct monetary value can play in a person's life and through a process of reinforcement where they can help build confidence and self-esteem. CONCLUSION: This is the first realist review to synthesise how, why, and for whom financial incentives work among those attempting to stop smoking, adding to the existing evidence demonstrating their efficacy. The findings will support the implementation of current knowledge into effective programmes which can enhance the impact of stop smoking care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022298941.

How do health system factors (funding and performance) impact on access to healthcare for populations experiencing homelessness: a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing long-term homelessness face significant difficulties accessing appropriate healthcare at the right time and place. This study explores how and why healthcare performance management and funding arrangements contribute to healthcare accessibility or the lack thereof using long-term homeless adults as an example of a population experiencing social exclusion. METHODS: A realist evaluation was undertaken. Thirteen realist interviews were conducted after which data were transcribed, coded, and analysed. RESULTS: Fourteen CMOCs were created based on analysis of the data collected. These were then consolidated into four higher-level CMOCs. They show that health systems characterised by fragmentation are designed to meet their own needs above the needs of patients, and they rely on practitioners with a special interest and specialised services to fill the gaps in the system. Key contexts identified in the study include: health system fragmentation; health service fragmentation; bio-medical, one problem at a time model; responsive specialised services; unresponsive mainstream services; national strategy; short health system funding cycles; and short-term goals. CONCLUSION: When health services are fragmented and complex, the needs of socially excluded populations such as those experiencing homelessness are not met. Health systems focus on their own metrics and rely on separate actors such as independent NGOs to fill gaps when certain people are not accommodated in the mainstream health system. As a result, health systems lack a comprehensive understanding of the needs of all population groups and fail to plan adequately, which maintains fragmentation. Policy makers must set policy and plan health services based on a full understanding of needs of all population groups.

How International Health System Austerity Responses to the 2008 Financial Crisis Impacted Health System and Workforce Resilience - A Realist Review.

BACKGROUND: The Great Recession, following the 2008 financial crisis, led many governments to adopt programmes of austerity. This had a lasting impact on health system functionality, resources, staff (numbers, motivation and morale) and patient outcomes. This study aimed to understand how health system resilience was impacted and how this affects readiness for subsequent shocks. METHODS: A realist review identified legacies associated with austerity (proximal outcomes) and how these impact the distal outcome of health system resilience. EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EconLit and Web of Science were searched (2007-May 2021), resulting in 1081 articles. Further theory-driven searches resulted in an additional 60 studies. Descriptive, inductive, deductive and retroductive realist analysis (utilising excel and Nvivo) aided the development of context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs), alongside stakeholder engagement to confirm or refute emerging results. Causal pathways, and the interplay between context and mechanisms that led to proximal and distal outcomes, were revealed. The refined CMOCs and policy recommendations focused primarily on workforce resilience. RESULTS: Five CMOCs demonstrated how austerity-driven policy decisions can impact health systems when driven by the priorities of external agents. This created a real or perceived shift away from the values and interests of health professionals, a distrust in decision-making processes and resistance to change. Their values were at odds with the realities of implementing such policy decisions within sustained restrictive working conditions (rationing of staff, consumables, treatment options). A diminished view of the profession and an inability to provide high-quality, equitable, and needs-led care, alongside stagnant or degraded working conditions, led to moral distress. This can forge legacies that may adversely impact resilience when faced with future shocks. CONCLUSION: This review reveals the importance of transparent, open communication, in addition to co-produced policies in order to avoid scenarios that can be detrimental to workforce and health system resilience.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice.

Although general practice can contribute to reducing health inequalities, existing evidence provides little guidance on how this reduction can be achieved. We reviewed interventions influencing health and care inequalities in general practice and developed an action framework for health professionals and decision makers. We conducted a realist review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews of interventions into health inequality in general practice. We then screened the studies in the included systematic reviews for those that reported their outcomes by socioeconomic status or other PROGRESS-Plus (Cochrane Equity Methods Group) categories. 159 studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Robust evidence on the effect of general practice on health inequalities is scarce. Focusing on common qualities of interventions, we found that to reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be informed by five key principles: involving coordinated services across the system (ie, connected), accounting for differences within patient groups (ie, intersectional), making allowances for different patient needs and preferences (ie, flexible), integrating patient worldviews and cultural references (ie, inclusive), and engaging communities with service design and delivery (ie, community-centred). Future work should explore how these principles can inform the organisational development of general practice.

Public attitudes to implementing financial incentives in stopsmoking services in Ireland.

INTRODUCTION: Financial incentives improve stop-smoking service outcomes. Views on acceptability can influence implementation success. To inform implementation planning in Ireland, public attitudes on financial incentives to stop smoking were measured. METHODS: A cross-sectional telephone survey was administered to 1000 people in Ireland aged ≥15 years in 2022, sampled through random digit dialing. The questionnaire included items on support for financial incentives under different conditions. Prevalence of support was calculated with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and multiple logistic regression identified associated factors using adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Almost half (47.0%, 95% CI: 43.9-50.1) of the participants supported at least one type of financial incentive to stop smoking, with support more prevalent for shopping vouchers (43.3%, 95% CI: 40.3-46.5) than cash payments (32.1%, 95% CI: 29.2-35.0). Support was similar for universal and income-restricted schemes. Of those who supported financial incentives, the majority (60.6%) believed the maximum amount given on proof of stopping smoking should be under €250 (median=100, range: 1-7000). Compared to their counterparts, those of lower education level (AOR=1.49; 95% CI: 1.10-2.03, p=0.010) and tobacco/e-cigarette users (AOR=1.43; 95% CI: 1.02-2.03, p=0.041) were significantly more likely to support either financial incentive type, as were younger people. CONCLUSIONS: While views on financial incentives to stop smoking in Ireland were mixed, the intervention is more acceptable in groups experiencing the heaviest burden of smoking-related harm and most capacity to benefit. Engagement and communication must be integral to planning for successful implementation to improve stop-smoking service outcomes.

How to not revert to type: Complexity-informed learnings from the pandemic response for health system reform and universal access to integrated care.

This article is part of the Research Topic 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict'. Background: COVID-19 has highlighted existing health inequalities and health system deficiencies both in Ireland and internationally; however, understanding of the critical opportunities for health system change that have arisen during the pandemic is still emerging and largely descriptive. This research is situated in the Irish health reform context of Sláintecare, the reform programme which aims to deliver universal healthcare by strengthening public health, primary and community healthcare functions as well as tackling system and societal health inequities. Aims and objectives: This study set out to advance understanding of how and to what extent COVID-19 has highlighted opportunities for change that enabled better access to universal, integrated care in Ireland, with a view to informing universal health system reform and implementation. Methods: The study, which is qualitative, was underpinned by a co-production approach with Irish health system leadership. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with sixteen health system professionals (including managers and frontline workers) from a range of responses to explore their experiences and interpretations of social processes of change that enabled (or hindered) better access to universal integrated care during the pandemic. A complexity-informed approach was mobilized to theorize the processes that impacted on access to universal, integrated care in Ireland in the COVID-19 context. Findings: A range of circumstances, strategies and mechanisms that created favorable system conditions in which new integrated care trajectories emerged during the crisis. Three key learnings from the pandemic response are presented: (1) nurturing whole-system thinking through a clear, common goal and shared information base; (2) harnessing, sharing and supporting innovation; and (3) prioritizing trust and relationship-building in a social, human-centered health system. Policy and practice implications for health reform are discussed.

Social exclusion and its impact on health over the life course: A realist review protocol.

Background: Social exclusion is a process whereby certain individuals are born into or pushed to the margins of society and prevented from participating in social, cultural, economic, and political life. People who experience social exclusion are not afforded the same rights and privileges as other population groups. Socially excluded people often experience poorer outcomes in a variety of domains including health, education, employment, and housing than people with socio-economic privilege. People experiencing social exclusion frequently have higher and more complex health needs and poorer access to healthcare than the general population. The aim of this study is to better understand and explain how social exclusion occurs and how it impacts health over the life course. Methods: A realist review will be undertaken. Data will be collected via a systematic search of databases of peer-reviewed literature and further iterative searches of peer-reviewed and other literatures as needed. The following data bases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ASSIA, using both indexed subject headings in each database and relevant key words. Grey literature will be searched via Google Scholar and relevant websites of organisations that work with populations affected by social exclusion. Conclusion: A realist review will be conducted to explain the underlying societal mechanisms which produce social exclusion and related health outcomes in particular contexts affecting excluded population groups across the life course. The study has the potential to inform policy makers and service managers of how and why social exclusion occurs and potential key intervention points to prevent exclusion from happening.

How and why do financial incentives contribute to helping people stop smoking? A realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is harmful to human health and programmes to help people stop smoking are key public health efforts that improve individual and population health outcomes. Research shows that financial incentives improve the success of stop smoking programmes. However, a better understanding of how they work is needed to better inform policy and to support building capability for implementation.The aims of this study: (1) To review the international literature to understand: How, why, in what circumstances and for whom financial incentives improve the success of stop smoking interventions among general population groups and among pregnant women. (2) To provide recommendations for how to best use financial incentives in efforts to promote smoking cessation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review of published international literature will be undertaken to understand how, why, for whom and in which circumstances financial incentives contribute to success in stopping smoking for general population groups and among pregnant women. Systematic searches were undertaken on 16 February 2022 of five academic databases: MEDLINE (ovid), Embase.com, CIHAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO. Iterative searching using citation tracking and of grey literature will be undertaken as needed. Using Pawson and Tilley's iterative realist review approach, data collected will be screened, selected, coded, analysed and synthesised into a set of explanatory theoretical findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review as data sources to be included are previously published. The study will provide important findings for policy-makers and health system leaders to guide the development of stop smoking services which use incentives, for example, as part of the Health Service Executive's Tobacco Free Programme in Ireland. Understanding how contextual factors impact implementation and programmatic success is key to developing a more effective public health approach to stop smoking. Our dissemination strategy will be developed with our stakeholders. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022298941.

A comparison of 2020 health policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

This paper compares health policy responses to COVID-19 in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and United States of America (US) from January to November 2020, with the aim of facilitating cross-country learning. Evidence is taken from the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor, a joint initiative of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, the WHO Regional Office for Europe, and the European Commission, which has documented country responses to COVID-19 using a structured template completed by country experts. We show all countries faced common challenges during the pandemic, including difficulties in scaling-up testing capacity, implementing timely and appropriate containment measures amid much uncertainty and overcoming shortages of health and social care workers, personal protective equipment and other medical technologies. Country responses to address these issues were similar in many ways, but dissimilar in others, reflecting differences in health system organization and financing, political leadership and governance structures. In the US, lack of universal health coverage have created barriers to accessing care, while political pushback against scientific leadership has likely undermined the crisis response. Our findings highlight the importance of consistent messaging and alignment between health experts and political leadership to increase the level of compliance with public health measures, alongside the need to invest in health infrastructure and training and retaining an adequate domestic health workforce. Building on innovations in care delivery seen during the pandemic, including increased use of digital technology, can also help inform development of more resilient health systems longer-term.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE).

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020217871.

Sláintecare implementation status in 2020: Limited progress with entitlement expansion.

The Sláintecare report developed by political consensus sets out a ten year plan for achieving Universal Health Care (UHC) in Ireland. This paper evaluates the design and progress of the report to mid 2020, but with some reflection on the new COVID 19 era, particularly as it relates to the expansion of entitlements to achieve UHC. The authors explore how close Sláintecare is to the UHC ideal. They also review the phased strategy of implementation in Sláintecare that utilises a systems-thinking approach with interlinkages between entitlements, funding, capacity and implementation. Finally the authors review the Sláintecare milestones against the reality of implementation since the publication of the report in 2017, cognisant of government policy and practice. Some of the initial assumptions around the context of Sláintecare were not realised and there has been limited progress made toward expanding entitlements, and certainly short of the original plan. Nevertheless there have been positive developments in that there is evidence that Government's Implementation Strategy and Action Plans are focussing on reforming a complex adaptive system rather than implementing a blueprint with such initiatives as integrated care pilots and citizen engagement. The authors find that this may help the system change but it risks losing some of the essential elements of entitlement expansion in favour of organisational change.

Making healthcare accessible for single adults with complex needs experiencing long-term homelessness: A realist evaluation protocol.

Background: Over the last several years, homelessness has increased in Ireland and across Europe. Rates have recently declined since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but it is unclear whether emergency housing measures will remain in place permanently. Populations experiencing long-term homelessness face a higher burden of multi-morbidity at an earlier age than housed populations and have poorer health outcomes. However, this population also has more difficulty accessing appropriate health services. A realist review by the authors found that important health system contexts which impact access are resourcing, training, funding cycles, health system fragmentation, health system goals, how care is organised, culture, leadership and flexibility of care delivery. Using a realist evaluation approach, this research will explore and refine key system-level factors, highlighted in our realist review, in a local health care system. Aim: The aim of this study is to understand how funding procedures and health system performance management impact service settings, staff, providers and their ability to make services accessible to populations experiencing homelessness. Methods: A realist evaluation will be undertaken to explain how funding and health system performance management impact healthcare accessibility for populations experiencing homelessness. Data will be collected using qualitative and realist interview techniques and focus group methodology. Secondary data such as policy documents and budgets will utilised. The analysis will follow Pawson and Tilley's iterative phases starting with building an Initial programme theory, then data collection, data analysis, synthesis and finally building a refined programme theory. Conclusion: Building on a realist review conducted by the same research team, this study will further test and refine findings that explain how health system factors impact healthcare accessibility for populations experiencing homelessness. The study has the potential to inform policy makers, health planners and managers of contextual factors that can be modified to increase healthcare accessibility.

Sláintecare - A ten-year plan to achieve universal healthcare in Ireland.

In May 2017, an Irish cross-party parliamentary committee published the 'Houses of the Oireachtas Committee on the Future of Healthcare "Sláintecare" report'. The report, known as 'Sláintecare', is unique and historic as it is the first time there has been a cross-party political consensus on major health reform in Ireland. Sláintecare sets out a high level policy roadmap to deliver whole system reform and universal healthcare, phased over a ten year period and costed. Sláintecare details reform proposals which, if delivered, will establish; a universal, single-tier health service where patients are treated solely on the basis of health need; the reorientation of the health system 'towards integrated primary and community care, consistent with the highest quality of patient safety in as short a time-frame as possible'. Sláintecare has five interrelated components: population health; entitlements and access to healthcare; integrated care; funding; and implementation. In this article, the authors use documents in the public domain (parliamentary reports, public hearings, submissions to the Committee, media coverage, the final report of the Committee, speeches by Committee members) to describe the policy process and the main contents of the proposed Sláintecare reforms. It is too soon tell if the political consensus in the policy formation can hold for its implementation.