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.

Interventions to enhance psychological resilience in forcibly displaced children: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Children represent nearly 40% of forcibly displaced populations and are subject to stressors that affect well-being. Little is known about the effects of interventions to enhance psychological resilience in these children, outside clinical settings. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, following Cochrane methods. Eligible studies tested resilience-enhancing interventions outside clinical settings in forcibly displaced children/adolescents. We included longitudinal quantitative studies with comparator conditions irrespective of geographical scope or language. We searched articles published between January 2010 and April 2020 in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsycINFO and the WHO's Global Index Medicus. To standardise effect sizes across the different reported outcomes, we transformed reported mean differences to standardised mean differences using Hedge's g statistic with associated 95% CI. We pooled data for meta-analysis where appropriate. We used Cochrane tools to assess study risk of bias and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to determine evidence quality for meta-analysed outcomes. RESULTS: Searches yielded 4829 results. Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria. Studies reported 18 outcomes measured by 48 different scales; only 1 study explicitly measured resilience. Eight studies were randomised controlled trials; the rest were non-randomised pre-post studies. Interventions were diverse and typically implemented in group settings. Studies reported significant improvement in outcomes pertinent to behavioural problems, coping mechanisms and general well-being but not to caregiver support or psychiatric symptoms. In meta-analysis, resilience was improved (gav=0.194, 95% CI 0.018 to 0.369), but anxiety symptoms and quality of life were not (gav=-0.326, 95% CI -0.782 to 0.131 and gav=0.325, 95% CI -0.027 to 0.678, respectively). Risk of bias varied. Quality of evidence for most graded outcomes was very low. CONCLUSIONS: The multiplicity of study designs, intervention types, outcomes and measures incumbered quantifying intervention effectiveness. Future resilience research in this population should use rigorous methods and follow reporting guidelines. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020177069.

Government purchasing initiatives involving private providers in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: a systematic review of impact on health service utilisation.

OBJECTIVE: This paper provides a systematic review of evidence of government purchase of health services from private providers through stand-alone contracting-out (CO) initiatives and CO insurance schemes (CO-I) on health service utilisation in Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) to inform universal health coverage 2030 strategies. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search of published and grey literature on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINHAL, Google Scholar and web, including websites of ministries of health from January 2010 to November 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, time series, before-after and endline with comparison group reporting quantitative utilisation of data across 16 low-income and middle-income states of EMR. Search was limited to publications in English or English translation. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We planned for meta-analysis, but due to limited data and heterogeneous outcomes, descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Several initiatives were identified but only 128 studies were eligible for full-text screening and 17 met the inclusion criteria. These included CO (n=9), CO-I (n=3) and a combination of both (n=5) across seven countries. Eight studies assessed interventions at national level and nine at subnational level. Seven studies reported on purchasing arrangements with non-governmental organisations, 10 on private hospitals and clinics. Impact on outpatient curative care utilisation was seen in both CO and CO-I, positive evidence of improved maternity care service volumes was seen mainly from CO interventions and less reported from CO-I, whereas data on child health service volume was only available for CO and indicated negative impact on service volumes. The studies also suggest pro-poor effect for CO initiatives, whereas there was scarce data for CO-I. CONCLUSION: Purchasing involving stand-alone CO and CO-I interventions in EMR positively impact general curative care utilisation, but lacks conclusive evidence for other services. Policy attention is needed for embedded evaluations within programmes, standardised outcome metrics and disaggregated utilisation data.