Deconcentrating regulation in low- and middle-income country health systems: a proposed ambidextrous solution to problems with professional regulation for doctors and nurses in Kenya and Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Regulation can improve professional practice and patient care, but is often weakly implemented and enforced in health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Taking a de-centred and frontline perspective, we examine national regulatory actors' and health professionals' views and experiences of health professional regulation in Kenya and Uganda and discuss how it might be improved in LMICs more generally. METHODS: We conducted large-scale research on professional regulation for doctors and nurses (including midwives) in Uganda and Kenya during 2019-2021. We interviewed 29 national regulatory stakeholders and 47 subnational regulatory actors, doctors, and nurses. We then ran a national survey of Kenyan and Ugandan doctors and nurses, which received 3466 responses. We thematically analysed qualitative data, conducted an exploratory factor analysis of survey data, and validated findings in four focus group discussions. RESULTS: Kenyan and Ugandan regulators were generally perceived as resource-constrained, remote, and out of touch with health professionals. This resulted in weak regulation that did little to prevent malpractice and inadequate professional education and training. However, interviewees were positive about online licencing and regulation where they had relationships with accessible regulators. Building on these positive findings, we propose an ambidextrous approach to improving regulation in LMIC health systems, which we term deconcentrating regulation. This involves developing online licencing and streamlining regulatory administration to make efficiency savings, freeing regulatory resources. These resources should then be used to develop connected subnational regulatory offices, enhance relations between regulators and health professionals, and address problems at local level. CONCLUSION: Professional regulation for doctors and nurses in Kenya and Uganda is generally perceived as weak. Yet these professionals are more positive about online licencing and regulation where they have relationships with regulators. Building on these positive findings, we propose deconcentrating regulation as a solution to regulatory problems in LMICs. However, we note resource, cultural and political barriers to its effective implementation.

How to evaluate a multi-country implementation-focused network: Reflections from the Quality of Care Network (QCN) evaluation.

Learning about how to evaluate implementation-focused networks is important as they become more commonly used. This research evaluated the emergence, legitimacy and effectiveness of a multi-country Quality of Care Network (QCN) aiming to improve maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) outcomes. We examined the QCN global level, national and local level interfaces in four case study countries. This paper presents the evaluation team's reflections on this 3.5 year multi-country, multi-disciplinary project. Specifically, we examine our approach, methodological innovations, lessons learned and recommendations for conducting similar research. We used a reflective methodological approach to draw lessons on our practice while evaluating the QCN. A 'reflections' tool was developed to guide the process, which happened within a period of 2-4 weeks across the different countries. All country research teams held focused 'reflection' meetings to discuss questions in the tool before sharing responses with this paper's lead author. Similarly, the different lead authors of all eight QCN papers convened their writing teams to reflect on the process and share key highlights. These data were thematically analysed and are presented across key themes around the implementation experience including what went well, facilitators and critical methodological adaptations, what can be done better and recommendations for undertaking similar work. Success drivers included the team's global nature, spread across seven countries with members affiliated to nine institutions. It was multi-level in expertise and seniority and highly multidisciplinary including experts in medicine, policy and health systems, implementation research, behavioural sciences and MNCH. Country Advisory Boards provided technical oversight and support. Despite complexities, the team effectively implemented the QCN evaluation. Strong leadership, partnership, communication and coordination were key; as were balancing standardization with in-country adaptation, co-production, flattening hierarchies among study team members and the iterative nature of data collection. Methodological adaptations included leveraging technology which became essential during COVID-19, clear division of roles and responsibilities, and embedding capacity building as both an evaluation process and outcome, and optimizing technology use for team cohesion and quality outputs.

Opportunities to sustain a multi-country quality of care network: Lessons on the actions of four countries Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda.

The Quality of Care Network (QCN) is a global initiative that was established in 2017 under the leadership of WHO in 11 low-and- middle income countries to improve maternal, newborn, and child health. The vision was that the Quality of Care Network would be embedded within member countries and continued beyond the initial implementation period: that the Network would be sustained. This paper investigated the experience of actions taken to sustain QCN in four Network countries (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda) and reports on lessons learned. Multiple iterative rounds of data collection were conducted through qualitative interviews with global and national stakeholders, and non-participatory observation of health facilities and meetings. A total of 241 interviews, 42 facility and four meeting observations were carried out. We conducted a thematic analysis of all data using a framework approach that defined six critical actions that can be taken to promote sustainability. The analysis revealed that these critical actions were present with varying degrees in each of the four countries. Although vulnerabilities were observed, there was good evidence to support that actions were taken to institutionalize the innovation within the health system, to motivate micro-level actors, plan opportunities for reflection and adaptation from the outset, and to support strong government ownership. Two actions were largely absent and weakened confidence in future sustainability: managing financial uncertainties and fostering community ownership. Evidence from four countries suggested that the QCN model would not be sustained in its original format, largely because of financial vulnerability and insufficient time to embed the innovation at the sub-national level. But especially the efforts made to institutionalize the innovation in existing systems meant that some characteristics of QCN may be carried forward within broader government quality improvement initiatives.

Individual, organizational and system circumstances, and the functioning of a multi-country implementation-focused network for maternal, newborn and child health: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda.

Better policies, investments, and programs are needed to improve the integration and quality of maternal, newborn, and child health services. Previously, partnerships and collaborations that involved multiple countries with a unified aim have been observed to yield positive results. Since 2017, the WHO and partners have hosted the Quality of Care Network [QCN], a multi-country implementation network focused on improving maternal, neonatal, and child health care. In this paper, we examine the functionality of QCN in different contexts. We focus on implementation circumstances and contexts in four network countries: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda. In each country, the study was conducted over several consecutive rounds between 2019-2022, employing 227 key informant interviews with major stakeholders and members of the network countries, and 42 facility observations. The collected data were coded using Nvivo-12 software and categorized thematically. The study showed that individual, organizational and system-level circumstances all played an important role in shaping implementation success in network countries, but that these levels were inter-linked. Systems that enabled leadership, motivated and trained staff, and created a positive culture of data use were critical for policy-making including addressing financing issues-to the day-to-day practice improvement at the front line. Some characteristics of QCN actively supported this, for example, shared learning forums for continuous learning, a focus on data and tracking progress, and emphasising the importance of coordinated efforts towards a common goal. However, inadequate system financing and capacity also hampered network functioning, especially in the face of external shocks.

Psychological distress and social support among conflict refugees in urban, semi-rural and rural settlements in Uganda: burden and associations.

BACKGROUND: Recent research shows that psychological distress is on the rise globally as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions imposed on populations to manage it. We studied the association between psychological distress and social support among conflict refugees in urban, semi-rural and rural settlements in Uganda during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey data on psychological distress, social support, demographics, socio-economic and behavioral variables was gathered from 1014 adult refugees randomly sampled from urban, semi-rural and rural refugee settlements in Uganda, using two-staged cluster sampling. Data was analyzed in SPSS-version 22, and statistical significance was assumed at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Refugees resident in rural/semi-rural settlements exhibited higher levels of psychological distress [F(2, 1011) = 47.91; p < 0.001], higher availability of social interaction [F(2, 1011) = 82.24; p < 0.001], lower adequacy of social interaction [F(2, 1011) = 54.11; p < 0.001], higher availability of social attachment [F(2, 1011) = 47.95; p < 0.001], and lower adequacy of social attachment [F(2, 1011) = 50.54; p < 0.001] than peers in urban settlements. Adequacy of social interaction significantly explained variations in psychological distress levels overall and consistently across settlements, after controlling for plausible confounders. Additionally, adequacy of social attachment significantly explained variations in psychological distress levels among refugees in rural settlements, after controlling for plausible confounders. CONCLUSION: There is a settlement-inequality (i.e. rural vs. urban) in psychological distress and social support among conflict refugees in Uganda. To address psychological distress, Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Services (MHPSS) should focus on strategies which strengthen the existing social networks among refugees. Variations in social support are a key predictor of distress which should guide tailored need-adapted interventions instead of duplicating similar and generic interventions across diverse refugee settlements.

Healthworker preparedness for COVID-19 management and implementation experiences: a mixed methods study in Uganda's refugee-hosting districts.

BACKGROUND: The negative impact of COVID-19 on population health outcomes raises critical questions on health system preparedness and resilience, especially in resource-limited settings. This study examined healthworker preparedness for COVID-19 management and implementation experiences in Uganda's refugee-hosting districts. METHODS: A cross sectional, mixed-method descriptive study in 17 health facilities in 7 districts from 4 major regions. Total sample size was 485 including > 370 health care workers (HCWs). HCW knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) was assessed by using a pre-validated questionnaire. The quantitative data was processed and analysed using SPSS 26, and statistical significance assumed at p < 0.05 for all statistical tests. Bloom's cutoff of 80% was used to determine threshold for sufficient knowledge level and practices with scores classified as high (80.0-100.0%), average (60.0-79.0%) and low (≤ 59.0%). HCW implementation experiences and key stakeholder opinions were further explored qualitatively using interviews which were audio-recorded, coded and thematically analysed. RESULTS: On average 71% of HCWs were knowledgeable on the various aspects of COVID-19, although there is a wide variation in knowledge. Awareness of symptoms ranked highest among 95% (p value < 0.0001) of HCWs while awareness of the criteria for intubation for COVID-19 patients ranked lowest with only 35% (p value < 0.0001). Variations were noted on falsehoods about COVID-19 causes, prevention and treatment across Central (p value < 0.0356) and West Nile (p value < 0.0161) regions. Protective practices include adequate ventilation, virtual meetings and HCW training. Deficient practices were around psychosocial and lifestyle support, remote working and contingency plans for HCW safety. The work environment has immensely changed with increased demands on the amount of work, skills and variation in nature of work. HCWs reported moderate control over their work environment but with a high level of support from supervisors (88%) and colleagues (93%). CONCLUSIONS: HCWs preparedness is inadequate in some aspects. Implementation of healthcare interventions is constrained by the complexity of Uganda's health system design, top-down approach of the national response to COVID-19 and longstanding health system bottlenecks. We recommend continuous information sharing on COVID-19, a design review with capacity strengthening at all health facility levels and investing in community-facing strategies.