The governance behaviours: a proposed approach for the alignment of the public and private sectors for better health outcomes.

Health systems are 'the ensemble of all public and private organisations, institutions and resources mandated to improve, maintain or restore health.' The private sector forms a major part of healthcare practice in many health systems providing a wide range of health goods and services, with significant growth across low-income and middle-income countries. WHO sees building stronger and more effective health systems through the participation and engagement of all health stakeholders as the pathway to further reducing the burden of disease and meeting health targets and the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are governance and public policy gaps when it comes to interaction or engagement with the private sector, and therefore, some governments have lost contact with a major area of healthcare practice. As a result, market forces rather than public policy shape private sector activities with follow-on effects for system performance. While the problem is well described, proposed normative solutions are difficult to apply at country level to translate policy intentions into action. In 2020, WHO adopted a strategy report which argued for a major shift in approach to engage the private sector based on the performance of six governance behaviours. These are a practice-based approach to governance and draw on earlier work from Travis et al on health system stewardship subfunctions. This paper elaborates on the governance behaviours and explains their application as a practice approach for strengthening the capacity of governments to work with the private sector to achieve public policy goals.

Engaging the private sector to deliver quality maternal and newborn health services for universal health coverage: lessons from policy dialogues.

The private health sector is becoming increasingly important in discussions on improving the quality of care for maternal and newborn health (MNH). Yet information rarely addresses what engaging the private sector for MNH means and how to do it. In 2019, the Network for Improving Quality of Care for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (the Network) initiated exploratory research to better understand how to ensure that the private sector delivers quality care and what the public sector must do to facilitate and sustain this process. This article details the approach and lessons learnt from two Network countries, Ghana and Nigeria, where teams explored the mechanisms for engaging the private sector in delivering MNH services with quality. The situational analyses in Ghana and Nigeria revealed challenges in engaging the private sector, including lack of accurate data, mistrust and an unlevel playing field. Challenging market conditions hindered a greater private sector role in delivering quality MNH services. Based on these analyses, participants at multistakeholder workshops recommended actions addressing policy/administration, regulation and service delivery. The findings from this research help strengthen the evidence base on engaging the private sector to deliver quality MNH services and show that this likely requires engagement with broader health systems factors. In recognition of this need for a balanced approach and the new WHO private sector strategy, the WHO has updated the tools and process for countries interested in conducting this research. The Nigerian Ministry of Health is stewarding additional policy dialogues to further engage the private sector.

Incentives and disincentives to private sector reporting on family planning in Kenya: why these matter, and how they may change over time.

Background: This study sought to understand private sector reporting on family planning in Kenya's health information system (KHIS). We approached this through three lenses: governance, procedural and technical. Our study looked at these areas of interest in Kenya, complemented by deeper exploration in Nairobi County. Methods: The study used mixed methods drawing on analysis from the KHIS and surveys, complemented by desk review. The qualitative research entailed group discussions with public sector personnel while more in-depth qualitative interviews were done with public and private sector respondents. A framework matrix was developed for the qualitative analysis. The study was approved by the Ministry of Health in March 2022 and conducted over the period March - May 2022.  Results: From a governance lens, private sector respondents recognised the importance of registry and reporting as a government policy requirement. From a procedural lens, private sector respondents saw reporting procedures as duplicative and parallel processes as reports are not generated through digitised information systems. From a technical lens, private sector reporting rates have improved over time however other data quality issues remain, which include over- and under-reporting of family planning services into KHIS. Secondary analysis for Nairobi County shows that the private facility contribution to family planning has declined over time while family planning access through pharmacies have grown over the same period; there is no visibility on this shift within the KHIS. Changes in private sector family service provision have implications for assumptions underpinning modern contraceptive modelled estimates and programmatic decision-making. Conclusions: There is limited monitoring of the incentives and disincentives for reporting by private health facilities into the KHIS. These have changed over time and place. Sustained private sector engagement is important to align incentives for reporting as is greater visibility on the role of pharmacies in family planning.

National ownership of family planning: What do FP2020 commitments have to do with it?

Background: In 2020, we reached a family planning (FP) temporal milestone. This paper seeks to understand the political economy of commitments and normative best practice within FP national programs, contributing to "stock taking" of change objectives for national ownership and domestic financing of FP programs post FP2020. Stock taking is needed to understand, for example, do we expect our current approaches to deliver greater commitment or do we need to change our approach? Is time the limiting factor for FP2020 commitments or are other, contextual, mechanistic and implementation factors more critical? Methods: This paper uses mini-case studies to offer insights in response to these questions. It drew from country status updates of national FP program commitments published on the FP2020 website. These included country self-assessments, country action for acceleration plans and revitalised commitments using standard templates provided by FP2020. Results:  Critical factors emerging from the case study analysis suggest the following. Context: Country programs that adapted best practices through thoughtful selection, regular monitoring, and course correction, were more responsive to context and better able to scale interventions.  Mechanism: Programs that embedded commitments within national health reforms and transformative agendas were able to sustain commitment and mechanism more effectively over time. Implementation: Programs that were able to balance central coordination with devolved implementation, more effectively translated commitments to action. Monitoring: Programs that placed emphasis on monitoring progress and course correct were better able to steward national commitments and partner inputs. Conclusions: National FP programs included within the country comparative analysis benefitted from their engagement with FP2020. However, not all were able to convert FP2020 commitments into national ownership. In many FP2020 contexts, there is less need for a technical intervention and greater need for engaging politically on sensitive issues that constrain women's and adolescent empowerment and rights and access to FP.

Bridging the gap with a gender lens: How two implementation research datasets were repurposed to inform health policy reform in Kenya.

Policies as they are written often mask the power relations behind their creation (Hull, 2008). As a result, not only are policies that appear neat on the page frequently messy in their implementation on the ground, but the messiness of implementation, and implementation science, often brings these hidden power relations to light. In this paper, we examine the process by which different data sources were generated within a programme meant to increase access to quality private healthcare for the poorest populations in Kenya, how these sources were brought and analyzed together to examine gender bias in the large-scale rollout of Kenya's National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) beyond public hospitals and civil service employees, and how these findings ultimately were developed in real time to feed into the NHIF reform process. We point to the ways in which data generated for implementation science purposes and without a specific focus on gender were analyzed with a policy implementation analysis lens to look at gender issues at the policy level, and pay particular attention to the role that the ongoing close partnership between the evaluators and implementers played in allowing the teams to develop and turn findings around on short timelines. In conclusion, we discuss possibilities for programme evaluators and implementers to generate new data and feed routine monitoring data into policy reform processes to create a health policy environment that serves patients more effectively and equitably. Implementation science is generally focused on programmatic improvement; the experiences in Kenya make clear that it can, and should, also be considered for policy improvement.

The inclusion of sexual and reproductive health services within universal health care through intentional design.

In this paper, we argue that how sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services are included in UHC and health financing matters, and that this has implications for universality and equity. This is a matter of rights, given the differential health risks that women face, including unwanted pregnancy. How traditional vertical SRH services are compensated under UHC also matters and should balance incentives for efficiency with incentives for appropriate provision using the rights-based approach to user-centred care so that risks of sub-optimal outcomes are mitigated. This suggests that as UHC benefits packages are designed, there is need for the SRH community to advocate for more than simple "SRH inclusion". This paper describes a practical approach to integrate quality of SRH care within the UHC agenda using a framework called the "5Ps". The framework emphasises a "systems" and "design" lens as important steps to quality. The framework can be applied at different scales, from the health system to the individual user level. It also pays attention to how financing and resource policies intended to promote UHC may support or undermine the respect, protection and fulfilment of SRH and rights. The framework was originally developed with a specific emphasis on quality provision of family planning. In this paper, we have extended it to cover other SRH services.

Challenges and opportunities in evaluating programmes incorporating human-centred design: lessons learnt from the evaluation of Adolescents 360.

Adolescents 360 (A360) is a four-year initiative (2016-2020) to increase 15-19-year-old girls' use of modern contraception in Nigeria, Ethiopia and Tanzania. The innovative A360 approach is led by human-centred design (HCD), combined with social marketing, developmental neuroscience, public health, sociocultural anthropology and youth engagement 'lenses', and aims to create context-specific, youth-driven solutions that respond to the needs of adolescent girls. The A360 external evaluation includes a process evaluation, quasi-experimental outcome evaluation, and a cost-effectiveness study. We reflect on evaluation opportunities and challenges associated with measuring the application and impact of this novel HCD-led design approach. For the process evaluation, participant observations were key to capturing the depth of the fast-paced, highly-iterative HCD process, and to understand decision-making within the design process. The evaluation team had to be flexible and align closely with the work plan of the implementers. The HCD process meant that key information such as intervention components, settings, and eligible populations were unclear and changed over outcome evaluation and cost-effectiveness protocol development. This resulted in a more time-consuming and resource-intensive study design process. As much time and resources went into the creation of a new design approach, separating one-off "creation" costs versus those costs associated with actually implementing the programme was challenging. Opportunities included the potential to inform programmatic decision-making in real-time to ensure that interventions adequately met the contextualized needs in targeted areas. Robust evaluation of interventions designed using HCD, a promising and increasingly popular approach, is warranted yet challenging. Future HCD-based initiatives should consider a phased evaluation, focusing initially on programme theory refinement and process evaluation, and then, when the intervention program details are clearer, following with outcome evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis. A phased approach would delay the availability of evaluation findings but would allow for a more appropriate and tailored evaluation design.

Get Smart: Learning and partnership with Ethiopia's Health Extension Programme to re-envision contraceptive service delivery to young couples.

Background: Adolescents 360 (A360) implements the Smart Start (SS) programme through Ethiopia's Health Extension Programme (HEP). SS is premised on financial planning as an entry point to discuss family planning (FP) with newly married couples and central to its delivery are the health extension workers (HEW). This article evaluates the A360 experience and learning from the process evaluation implemented by Itad to understand contextual barriers and enablers from the perspective of the HEW. Methods: A purposive sampling strategy was employed whereby 27 key stakeholders were identified from Oromia, Addis Ababa and Amhara, based on exposure to the SS programme. Findings from the action research were shared with A360 through a one day sounding workshop. Results: Findings revealed that many local government and communal respondents do not view adolescent pregnancy as a problem, unless out of wedlock, and adolescent pregnancy is closely linked to early marriage. As a result, some providers, including HEWs, acknowledged that married adolescent girls were previously 'neglected' by them, while husbands indicated that they had not previously been included in FP counselling. Findings also revealed some challenges with SS implementation as HEWs were 'deprioritizing' the intervention and many HEWs had been in situ for several years and were overworked and frustrated. Against this backdrop, A360 was viewed as adding to the HEW workload. While the programme design was focused on adolescent users, there was increasing recognition that HEWs also needed to be at the centre of solution design. Conclusions: Despite challenges associated with the HEP, Ethiopia FP2020 plans to support the 'next generation' of HEWs, including a focus on adolescents and youth. To gain deeper insight and put the HEW at the centre of design, A360 will continue to work with the process evaluation to understand contextual barriers and enablers from the perspective of the HEW.