Investment case for small and sick newborn care in Tanzania: systematic analyses.

BACKGROUND: Small and sick newborn care (SSNC) is critical for national neonatal mortality reduction targets by 2030. Investment cases could inform implementation planning and enable coordinated resource mobilisation. We outline development of an investment case for Tanzania to estimate additional financing for scaling up SSNC to 80% of districts as part of health sector strategies to meet the country's targets. METHODS: We followed five steps: (1) reviewed national targets, policies and guidelines; (2) modelled potential health benefits by increased coverage of SSNC using the Lives Saved Tool; (3) estimated setup and running costs using the Neonatal Device Planning and Costing Tool, applying two scenarios: (A) all new neonatal units and devices with optimal staffing, and (B) half new and half modifying, upgrading, or adding resources to existing neonatal units; (4) calculated budget impact and return on investment (ROI) and (5) identified potential financing opportunities. RESULTS: Neonatal mortality rate was forecast to fall from 20 to 13 per 1000 live births with scale-up of SSNC, superseding the government 2025 target of 15, and close to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 target of <12. At 85% endline coverage, estimated cumulative lives saved were 36,600 by 2025 and 80,000 by 2030. Total incremental costs were estimated at US$166 million for scenario A (US$112 million set up and US$54 million for running costs) and US$90 million for scenario B (US$65 million setup and US$25 million for running costs). Setup costs were driven by infrastructure (83%) and running costs by human resources (60%). Cost per capita was US$0.93 and the ROI is estimated to be between US$8-12 for every dollar invested. CONCLUSIONS: ROI for SSNC is higher compared to other health investments, noting many deaths averted followed by full lifespan. This is conservative since disability averted is not included. Budget impact analysis estimated a required 2.3% increase in total government health expenditure per capita from US$40.62 in 2020, which is considered affordable, and the government has already allocated additional funding. Our proposed five-step SSNC investment case has potential for other countries wanting to accelerate progress.

Protecting small and sick newborn care in the COVID-19 pandemic: multi-stakeholder qualitative data from four African countries with NEST360.

BACKGROUND: Health system shocks are increasing. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in global disruptions to health systems, including maternal and newborn healthcare seeking and provision. Yet evidence on mitigation strategies to protect newborn service delivery is limited. We sought to understand what mitigation strategies were employed to protect small and sick newborn care (SSNC) across 65 facilities Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Tanzania, implementing with the NEST360 Alliance, and if any could be maintained post-pandemic. METHODS: We used qualitative methods (in-depth interviews n=132, focus group discussions n=15) with purposively sampled neonatal health systems actors in Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Tanzania. Data were collected from September 2021 - August 2022. Topic guides were co-developed with key stakeholders and used to gain a detailed understanding of approaches to protect SSNC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questions explored policy development, collaboration and investments, organisation of care, human resources, and technology and device innovations. Interviews were conducted by experienced qualitative researchers and data were collected until saturation was reached. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. A common coding framework was developed, and data were coded via NVivo and analysed using a thematic framework approach. FINDINGS: We identified two pathways via which SSNC was strengthened. The first pathway, COVID-19 specific responses with secondary benefit to SSNC included: rapid policy development and adaptation, new and collaborative funding partnerships, improved oxygen systems, strengthened infection prevention and control practices. The second pathway, health system mitigation strategies during the pandemic, included: enhanced information systems, human resource adaptations, service delivery innovations, e.g., telemedicine, community engagement and more emphasis on planned preventive maintenance of devices. Chronic system weaknesses were also identified that limited the sustainability and institutionalisation of actions to protect SSNC. CONCLUSION: Innovations to protect SSNC in response to the COVID-19 pandemic should be maintained to support resilience and high-quality routine SSNC delivery. In particular, allocation of resources to sustain high quality and resilient care practices and address remaining gaps for SSNC is critical.

Devices and furniture for small and sick newborn care: systematic development of a planning and costing tool.

BACKGROUND: High-quality neonatal care requires sufficient functional medical devices, furniture, fixtures, and use by trained healthcare workers, however there is lack of publicly available tools for quantification and costing. This paper describes development and use of a planning and costing tool regarding furniture, fixtures and devices to support scale-up of WHO level-2 neonatal care, for national and global newborn survival targets. METHODS: We followed a systematic process. First, we reviewed planning and costing tools of relevance. Second, we co-designed a new tool to estimate furniture and device set-up costs for a default 40-bed level-2 neonatal unit, incorporating input from multi-disciplinary experts and newborn care guidelines. Furniture and device lists were based off WHO guidelines/norms, UNICEF and national manuals/guides. Due to lack of evidence-based quantification, ratios were based on operational manuals, multi-country facility assessment data, and expert opinion. Default unit costs were from government procurement agency costs in Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania. Third, we refined the tool by national use in Tanzania. RESULTS: The tool adapts activity-based costing (ABC) to estimate quantities and costs to equip a level-2 neonatal unit based on three components: (1) furniture/fixtures (18 default but editable items); (2) neonatal medical devices (16 product categories with minimum specifications for use in low-resource settings); (3) user training at device installation. The tool was used in Tanzania to generate procurement lists and cost estimates for level-2 scale-up in 171 hospitals (146 District and 25 Regional Referral). Total incremental cost of all new furniture and equipment acquisition, installation, and user training were US$93,000 per District hospital (level-2 care) and US$346,000 per Regional Referral hospital. Estimated cost per capita for whole-country district coverage was US$0.23, representing 0.57% increase in government health expenditure per capita and additional 0.35% for all Regional Referral hospitals. CONCLUSION: Given 2.3 million neonatal deaths and potential impact of level-2 newborn care, rational and efficient planning of devices linked to systems change is foundational. In future iterations, we aim to include consumables, spare parts, and maintenance cost options. More rigorous implementation research data are crucial to formulating evidence-based ratios for devices numbers per baby. Use of this tool could help overcome gaps in devices numbers, advance efficiency and quality of neonatal care.

Using research networks to generate trustworthy qualitative public health research findings from multiple contexts.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research networks (QRNs) bring together researchers from diverse contexts working on multi-country studies. The networks may themselves form a consortium or may contribute to a wider research agenda within a consortium with colleagues from other disciplines. The purpose of a QRN is to ensure robust methods and processes that enable comparisons across contexts. Under the Self-Testing Africa (STAR) initiative and the REACHOUT project on community health systems, QRNs were established, bringing together researchers across countries to coordinate multi-country qualitative research and to ensure robust methods and processes allowing comparisons across contexts. QRNs face both practical challenges in facilitating this iterative exchange process across sites and conceptual challenges interpreting findings between contexts. This paper distils key lessons and reflections from both QRN experiences on how to conduct trustworthy qualitative research across different contexts with examples from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya, Indonesia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. METHODS: The process of generating evidence for this paper followed a thematic analysis method: themes initially identified were refined during several rounds of discussions in an iterative process until final themes were agreed upon in a joint learning process. RESULTS: Four guiding principles emerged from our analysis: a) explicit communication strategies that sustain dialogue and build trust and collective reflexivity; b) translation of contextually embedded concepts; c) setting parameters for contextualizing, and d) supporting empirical and conceptual generalisability. Under each guiding principle, we describe how credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability can be enhanced and share good practices to be considered by other researchers. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative research is often context-specific with tools designed to explore local experiences and understandings. Without efforts to synthesise and systematically share findings, common understandings, experiences and lessons are missed. The logistical and conceptual challenges of qualitative research across multiple partners and contexts must be actively managed, including a shared commitment to continuous 'joint learning' by partners. Clarity and agreement on concepts and common methods and timelines at an early stage is critical to ensure alignment and focus in intercountry qualitative research and analysis processes. Building good relationships and trust among network participants enhance the quality of qualitative research findings.

Influence of China's 2009 healthcare reform on the utilisation of continuum of care for maternal health services: evidence from two cross-sectional household surveys in Shaanxi Province.

BACKGROUND: Continuum of care for maternal health services (CMHS) is a proven approach to improve health and safety for mothers and newborns. This study aims to explore the influence of China's 2009 healthcare reform on improving the CMHS utilisation. METHODS: This population-based cross-sectional quantitative study included 2332 women drawn from the fourth and fifth National Health Service Surveys of Shaanxi Province, conducted in 2008 and 2013 respectively, before and after China's 2009 healthcare reform. A generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) was applied to analyse the influence of this healthcare reform on utilisation of CMHS. Concentration curves, concentration indexes and its decomposition method were used to analyse the equity of changes in utilisation. RESULTS: This study showed post-reform CMHS utilisation was higher in both rural and urban women than the CMHS utilisation pre-reform (according to China's policy defining CMHS). The rate of CMHS utilisation increased from 24.66 to 41.55% for urban women and from 18.31 to 50.49% for rural women (urban: χ2 = 20.64, P < 0.001; rural: χ2 = 131.38, P < 0.001). This finding is consistent when the WHO's definition of CMHS is applied for rural women after reform (12.13% vs 19.26%; χ2 = 10.99, P = 0.001); for urban women, CMHS utilisation increased from 15.70 to 20.56% (χ2 = 2.57, P = 0.109). The GLMM showed that the rate of CMHS utilisation for urban women post-reform was five times higher than pre-reform rates (OR = 5.02, 95%CL: 1.90, 13.31); it was close to 15 times higher for rural women (OR = 14.70, 95%CL: 5.43, 39.76). The concentration index for urban women decreased from 0.130 pre-reform (95%CI: - 0.026, 0.411) to - 0.041 post-reform (95%CI: - 0.096, 0.007); it decreased from 0.104 (95%CI: - 0.012, 0.222) to 0.019 (95%CI: - 0.014, 0.060) for rural women. The horizontal inequity index for both groups of women also decreased (0.136 to - 0.047 urban and 0.111 to 0.019 for rural). CONCLUSIONS: China's 2009 healthcare reform has positively influenced utilisation rates and equity of CMHS's utilisation among both urban and rural women in Shaanxi Province. Addressing economic and educational attainment gaps between the rich and the poor may be effective ways to improve the persistent health inequities for rural women.

A conceptual framework for measuring community health workforce performance within primary health care systems.

BACKGROUND: With the 40th anniversary of the Declaration of Alma-Ata, a global effort is underway to re-focus on strengthening primary health care systems, with emphasis on leveraging community health workers (CHWs) towards the goal of achieving universal health coverage for all. Institutionalizing effective, sustainable community health systems is currently limited by a lack of standard metrics for measuring CHW performance and the systems they work within. Developed through iterative consultations, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and in partnership with USAID and UNICEF, this paper details a framework, list of indicators, and measurement considerations for monitoring CHW performance in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: A review of peer-reviewed articles, reports, and global data collection tools was conducted to identify key measurement domains in monitoring CHW performance. Three consultations were successively convened with global stakeholders, community health implementers, advocates, measurement experts, and Ministry of Health representatives using a modified Delphi approach to build consensus on priority indicators. During this process, a structured, web-based survey was administered to identify the importance and value of specific measurement domains, sub-domains, and indicators determined through the literature reviews and initial stakeholder consultations. Indicators with more than 75% support from participants were further refined with expert qualitative input. RESULTS: Twenty-one sub-domains for measurement were identified including measurement of incentives for CHWs, supervision and performance appraisal, data use, data reporting, service delivery, quality of services, CHW absenteeism and attrition, community use of services, experience of services, referral/counter-referral, credibility/trust, and programmatic costs. Forty-six indicators were agreed upon to measure the sub-domains. In the absence of complete population enumeration and digitized health information systems, the quality of metrics to monitor CHW programs is limited. CONCLUSIONS: Better data collection approaches at the community level are needed to strengthen management of CHW programs and community health systems. The proposed list of metrics balances exhaustive and pragmatic measurement of CHW performance within primary healthcare systems. Adoption of the proposed framework and associated indicators by CHW program implementors may improve programmatic effectiveness, strengthen their accountability to national community health systems, drive programmatic quality improvement, and plausibly improve the impact of these programs.

Form and functioning: contextualising the start of the global financing facility policy processes in Burkina Faso.

BACKGROUND: Burkina Faso joined the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents (GFF) in 2017 to address persistent gaps in funding for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition (RMNCAH-N). Few empirical papers deal with how global funding mechanisms, and specifically GFF, support resource mobilisation for health nationally. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the policy processes of developing the GFF planning documents (the Investment Case and Project Appraisal Document) in Burkina Faso. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative policy analysis. Data collection included document review (N = 74) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (N = 23). Data were analysed based on the components of the health policy triangle. RESULTS: There was strong national political support to RMNCAH-N interventions, and the process of drawing up the investment case (IC) and the project appraisal document was inclusive and multi-sectoral. Despite high-level policy commitments, subsequent implementation of the World Bank project, including the GFF contribution, was perceived by respondents as challenging, even after the project restructuring process occurred. These challenges were due to ongoing policy fragmentation for RMNCAH-N, navigation of differing procedures and perspectives between stakeholders in the setting up of the work, overcoming misunderstandings about the nature of the GFF, and weak institutional anchoring of the IC. Insecurity and political instability also contributed to observed delays and difficulties in implementing the commitments agreed upon. To tackle these issues, transformational and distributive leaderships should be promoted and made effective. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have examined national policy processes linked to the GFF or other global health initiatives. This kind of research is needed to better understand the range of challenges in aligning donor and national priorities encountered across diverse health systems contexts. This study may stimulate others to ensure that the GFF and other global health initiatives respond to local needs and policy environments for better implementation.

Main findings: There was a high level of political commitment to the Global Financing Facility in Burkina Faso, but its implementation has been hindered by policy fragmentation, competing interests, weak institutional anchoring, and misunderstandings.Added knowledge: This study documents the initiation of a global health initiative, specifically the Global Financing Facility, including the development and implementation of its planning documents, namely the Investment Case and Project Appraisal Document.Global health impact for policy and action: An understanding of the factors that facilitated or impeded the policy processes of developing and implementing the Global Financing Facility can inform the design and implementation of future initiatives.

Global Financing Facility investments for vulnerable populations: content analysis regarding maternal and newborn health and stillbirths in 11 African countries, 2015 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: The Global Financing Facility (GFF) was launched in 2015 to catalyse increased domestic and external financing for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, adolescent health, and nutrition. Half of the deaths along this continuum are neonatal deaths, stillbirths or maternal deaths; yet these topics receive the least aid financing across the continuum. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a policy content analysis of maternal and newborn health (MNH), including stillbirths, in GFF country planning documents, and assess the mortality burden related to the investment. METHODS: Content analysis was conducted on 24 GFF policy documents, investment cases and project appraisal documents (PADs), from 11 African countries. We used a systematic data extraction approach and applied a framework for analysis considering mindset, measures, and money for MNH interventions and mentions of mortality outcomes. We compared PAD investments to MNH-related deaths by country. RESULTS: For these 11 countries, USD$1,894 million of new funds were allocated through the PADs, including USD$303 million (16%) from GFF. All documents had strong content on MNH, with particular focus on pregnancy and childbirth interventions. The investment cases commonly included comprehensive results frameworks, and PADs generally had less technical content and fewer indicators. Mortality outcomes were mentioned, especially for maternal. Stillbirths were rarely included as targets. Countries had differing approaches to funding descriptions. PAD allocations are commensurate with the burden. CONCLUSIONS: The GFF country plans present a promising start in addressing MNH. Emphasising links between investments and burden, explicitly including stillbirth, and highlighting high-impact packages, as appropriate, could potentially increase impact.

Main finding: Maternal and newborn health care packages are strongly included in the Global Financing Facility policy documents for 11 African countries, especially regarding pregnancy and childbirth, though less for stillbirth, or postnatal care, or small and sick newborn care.Added knowledge: This study is the first independent content analysis of Global Financing Facility investment cases and related project appraisal documents, revealing mostly consistent content for maternal and newborn health across documents and overall correlation between national mortality burden and investments committed.Global health impact for policy and action: The Global Financing Facility have demonstrated promising initial investments for maternal and newborn health, although there are also missed opportunities for strengthening, especially for some neonatal high-impact packages and counting impact on stillbirths.

Donor aid mentioning newborns and stillbirths, 2002-19: an analysis of levels, trends, and equity.

BACKGROUND: Global aid for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health has stagnated in recent years, and aid mentioning newborns or stillbirths has previously represented a very small proportion of aid for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health. Neonatal survival targets have been set by 78 countries, and stillbirth prevention targets have been set by 30 countries, to address the 4·4 million newborn deaths and stillbirths globally. We aimed to generate novel estimates of current levels of, and trends in, aid mentioning newborns and stillbirths over 2002-19, and to assess whether the amount of aid disbursed aligns with the associated mortality burden. METHODS: For this analysis, we did a manual review and coding of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Creditor Reporting System database from 2002 to 2019 using key search terms for aid mentioning newborns and stillbirths. We compared these findings with estimates of aid for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health for 2002-19 based on the Muskoka2 method. Findings are presented in 2019 US$ according to the OECD's Development Assistance Committee deflators, which account for variation in exchange rates and inflation in donor countries. FINDINGS: We identified 21 957 unique records in the 2002-19 period. Aid mentioning newborns and stillbirths comprised approximately 10% ($1·6 billion) of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health funding overall in 2019 ($15·9 billion), with a small decrease in value between 2015 and 2019. 1284 (6%) of 21 957 records and 3·4% ($535 million) of their total value mentioned aid focused only on newborn health. Ten donors contributed 87% ($13·7 billion) of the total value of aid mentioning newborns and stillbirths during 2002-19. Aid mentioning newborns and stillbirths was inequitably allocated in the least developed countries (as defined by the UN), ranging from $18 per death in Angola to $1389 per death in Timor-Leste. Stillbirths were not mentioned in any funding in 2002-09, and they were only mentioned in 46 of 21 957 records in 2010-19, comprising $44·4 million of aid disbursed during this period. INTERPRETATION: Aid mentioning newborns and stillbirths is poorly matched to their corresponding mortality burden (representing 10% of aid for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health overall, yet accounting for approximately 50% of mortality in children <5 years) and across recipient countries (with substantial variation in the amount of aid received per newborn death and stillbirth between countries with similar health and economic needs). Our findings indicate that aid needs to be better targeted to populations with the highest mortality burdens, creating greater potential for impact. FUNDING: John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, ELMA Philanthropies, Children's Investment Fund Foundation UK, Lemelson Foundation, and Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Research funding for newborn health and stillbirths, 2011-20: a systematic analysis of levels and trends.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, an estimated 4·4 million newborn deaths and stillbirths occurred in 2020, and 98% of these deaths occurred in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to analyse new research grants for newborns and stillbirth awarded by major funders in 2019-20, and all research funding allocated to LMIC-based institutions in 2011-20. METHODS: For this systematic analysis, we searched Dimensions, the world's largest research funding database, for grants relevant to neonatal and stillbirth research. Included grants were categorised by in-depth content analysis, with descriptive quantitative analyses by funder and recipient countries, research pipeline, topic, and year. FINDINGS: Globally, in 2019-20, major funders awarded a mean annual total of US$577·1 million per year for newborn and stillbirth research (mean total of 550 grants per year). $166·3 million (28·8%) of $577·1 million was directed to small and vulnerable newborn research, but only $8·4 million (1·5%) was directed to stillbirth research. The majority of funding, $537·0 million (93·0%), was allocated to organisations based in high-income countries. Between 2011 and 2020, LMIC-based recipients were named on 1985 grants from all funders worth $486·7 million, of which $73·1 million (15·0%) was allocated to small and vulnerable newborn research and $12·0 million (2·5%) was allocated to stillbirth research. Most LMIC funding supported preclinical or observational studies ($236·8 million [48·7%] of $486·7 million), with implementation research receiving only $13·9 million (2·9%). INTERPRETATION: Although investment in research related to neonatal health and stillbirths has increased between 2011 and 2020, there are marked disparities in distribution geographically, between major causes of mortality, and among research pipeline types. Stillbirth research received minimal funding in both high-income countries and LMICs, despite a similar number of deaths compared with neonates. Direct investment in LMIC-led research, especially for implementation research, could accelerate the slow global progress on stillbirth prevention and newborn survival. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATIONS: For the French, German and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Cost-effectiveness of community health systems strengthening: quality improvement interventions at community level to realise maternal and child health gains in Kenya.

INTRODUCTION: Improvements in maternal and infant health outcomes are policy priorities in Kenya. Achieving these outcomes depends on early identification of pregnancy and quality of primary healthcare. Quality improvement interventions have been shown to contribute to increases in identification, referral and follow-up of pregnant women by community health workers. In this study, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using quality improvement at community level to reduce maternal and infant mortality in Kenya. METHODS: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of quality improvement compared with standard of care treatment for antenatal and delivering mothers using a decision tree model and taking a health system perspective. We used both process (antenatal initiation in first trimester and skilled delivery) and health outcomes (maternal and infant deaths averted, as well as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)) as our effectiveness measures and actual implementation costs, discounting costs only. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: We found that the community quality improvement intervention was more cost-effective compared with standard community healthcare, with incremental cost per DALY averted of $249 under the deterministic analysis and 76% likelihood of cost-effectiveness under the probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a standard threshold. The deterministic estimate of incremental cost per additional skilled delivery was US$10, per additional early antenatal care presentation US$155, per maternal death averted US$5654 and per infant death averted US$37 536 (2017 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that the community quality improvement intervention was cost-effective compared with the standard community healthcare in Kenya due to improvements in antenatal care uptake and skilled delivery. It is likely that quality improvement interventions are a good investment and may also yield benefits in other health areas.

How do decision-makers use evidence in community health policy and financing decisions? A qualitative study and conceptual framework in four African countries.

Various investments could help countries deliver on the universal health coverage (UHC) goals set by the global community; community health is a pillar of many national strategies towards UHC. Yet despite resource mobilization towards this end, little is known about the potential costs and value of these investments, as well as how evidence on the same would be used in related decisions. This qualitative study was conducted to understand the use of evidence in policy and financing decisions for large-scale community health programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Through key informant interviews with 43 respondents in countries with community health embedded in national UHC strategies (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique) and at global institutions, we investigated evidence use in community health financing and policy decision-making, as well as evidentiary needs related to community health data for decision-making. We found that evidence use is limited at all levels, in part due to a perceived lack of high-quality, relevant evidence. This perception stems from two main areas: first, desire for local evidence that reflects the context, and second, much existing economic evidence does not deal with what decision-makers value when it comes to community health systems-i.e. coverage and (to a lesser extent) quality. Beyond the evidence gap, there is limited capacity to assess and use the evidence. Elected officials also face political challenges to disinvestment as well as structural obstacles to evidence use, including the outsized influence of donor priorities. Evaluation data must to speak to decision-maker interests and constraints more directly, alongside financiers of community health providing explicit guidance and support on the role of evidence use in decision-making, empowering national decision-makers. Improved data quality, increased relevance of evidence and capacity for evidence use can drive improved efficiency of financing and evidence-based policymaking.

What factors do make quality improvement work in primary health care? Experiences of maternal health quality improvement teams in three Puskesmas in Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: Indonesia has been shifting from ensuring access to health services towards improving service quality. Accreditation has been used as quality assurance (QA) mechanism, first in hospitals and subsequently in primary health care facilities, including Puskesmas (community health centres). QA provides measures of whether services meet quality targets, but quality improvement (QI) is needed to make change and achieve improvements. QI is a cyclical process with cycles of problem identification, solution testing and observation. We investigated the factors which influenced the process of QI based on experience of maternal health QI teams in three Puskesmas in Cianjur district, West Java province, Indonesia. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected using 28 in-depth interviews at two points of time: pre- (April 2016) and post- QI intervention (April 2017), involving national, provincial, district and Puskesmas managers; and Puskesmas QI team members. Thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted. RESULTS: We found four main factors contributed to the process of QI: 1) leadership, including awareness and attitude of leader(s) towards QI, involvement of leader(s) in the QI process and decision-making in budget allocation for QI; 2) staff enthusiasm and multidisciplinary collaboration; 3) a culture where QI is integrated in existing responsibilities; and 4) the ongoing Puskesmas accreditation process, which increased the value of QI to the organisation. CONCLUSION: Making QI a success in the decentralised Indonesian system requires action at four levels. At individual level, leadership attributes can create an internal quality environment and drive organisational cultural change. At team level, staff enthusiasm and collaboration can be triggered through engaging and tasking everyone in the QI process and having a shared vision of what quality should look like. At organisational level, QI should be integrated in planned activities, ensuring financial and human resources. Lastly, QI can be encouraged when it is implemented by the wider health system as part of national accreditation programmes.

Is quality affordable for community health systems? Costs of integrating quality improvement into close-to-community health programmes in five low-income and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: Countries aspiring to universal health coverage view close-to-community (CTC) providers as a low-cost means of increasing coverage. However, due to lack of coordination and unreliable funding, the quality of large-scale CTC healthcare provision is highly variable and routine data about service quality are not trustworthy. Quality improvement (QI) approaches are a means of addressing these issues, yet neither the costs nor the budget impact of integrating QI approaches into CTC programme costs have been assessed. METHODS: This paper examines the costs and budget impact of integrating QI into existing CTC health programmes in five countries (Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique) between 2015 and 2017. The intervention involved: (1) QI team formation; (2) Phased training interspersed with supportive supervision; which resulted in (3) QI teams independently collecting and analysing data to conduct QI interventions. Project costs were collected using an ingredients approach from a health systems perspective. Based on project costs, costs of local adoption of the intervention were modelled under three implementation scenarios. RESULTS: Annualised economic unit costs ranged from $62 in Mozambique to $254 in Ethiopia per CTC provider supervised, driven by the context, type of community health model and the intensity of the intervention. The budget impact of Ministry-led QI for community health is estimated at 0.53% or less of the general government expenditure on health in all countries (and below 0.03% in three of the five countries). CONCLUSION: CTC provision is a key component of healthcare delivery in many settings, so QI has huge potential impact. The impact is difficult to establish conclusively, but as a first step we have provided evidence to assess affordability of QI for community health. Further research is needed to assess whether QI can achieve the level of benefits that would justify the required investment.