Assessment of Bypass of the Nearest Primary Health Care Facility Among Women in Ghana.

Importance: Recent reports have highlighted that expanding access to health care is ineffective at meeting the goal of universal health coverage if the care offered does not meet a minimum level of quality. Health care facilities nearest to patient's homes that are perceived to offer inadequate or inappropriate care are frequently bypassed in favor of more distant private or tertiary-level hospital facilities that are perceived to offer higher-quality care. Objective: To estimate the frequency with which women in Ghana bypass the nearest primary health care facility and describe patient experiences, costs, and other factors associated with this choice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationally representative survey study was conducted in 2017 and included 4203 households to identify women in Ghana aged 15 to 49 years (ie, reproductive age) who sought primary care within the last 6 months. Women who sought care within the past 6 months were included in the study. Data were analyzed from 2018 to 2019. Exposures: Bypass was defined as a woman's report that she sought care at a health facility other than the nearest facility. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sociodemographic characteristics, reasons why women sought care, reasons why women bypassed their nearest facility, ratings for responsiveness of care, patient experience, and out-of-pocket costs. All numbers and percentages were survey-weighted to account for survey design. Results: A total of 4289 women met initial eligibility criteria, and 4207 women (98.1%) completed the interview. A total of 1993 women reported having sough health care in the past 6 months, and after excluding those who were ineligible and survey weighting, the total sample included 1946 women. Among these, 629 women (32.3%) reported bypassing their nearest facilities for primary care. Women who bypassed their nearest facilities, compared with women who did not, were more likely to visit a private facility (152 women [24.5%] vs 202 women [15.6%]) and borrow money to pay for their care (151 women [24.0%] vs 234 women [17.8%]). After adjusting for covariates, women who bypassed reported paying a mean of 107.2 (95% CI, 79.1-135.4) Ghanaian Cedis (US $18.50 [95% CI, $13.65-$23.36]) for their care, compared with a mean of 58.6 (95% CI, 28.1-89.2) Ghanaian Cedis (US $10.11 [95% CI, $4.85-15.35]) for women who did not bypass (P = .006). Women who bypassed cited clinician competence (136 women [34.3%]) and availability of supplies (93 women [23.4%]) as the most important factors in choosing a health facility. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this survey study suggest that bypassing the nearest health care facility was common among women in Ghana and that available services at lower levels of primary care are not meeting the needs of a large proportion of women. Among the benefits women perceived from bypassing were clinician competence and availability of supplies. These data provide insights to policy makers regarding potential gaps in service delivery and may help to guide primary health care improvement efforts.

Preliminary validation of the PRImary care facility Management Evaluation tool (PRIME-Tool), a national facility management survey implemented in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: The management quality of healthcare facilities has consistently been linked to facility performance, but available tools to measure management are costly to implement, often hospital-specific, not designed for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), nor widely deployed. We addressed this gap by developing the PRImary care facility Management Evaluation Tool (PRIME-Tool), a primary health care facility management survey for integration into routine national surveys in LMICs. We present an analysis of the tool's psychometric properties and suggest directions for future improvements. METHODS: The PRIME-Tool assesses performance in five core management domains: Target setting, Operations, Human resources, Monitoring, and Community engagement. We evaluated two versions of the PRIME-Tool. We surveyed 142 primary health care (PHC) facilities in Ghana in 2016 using the first version (27 items) and 148 facilities in 2017 using the second version (34 items). We calculated floor and ceiling effects for each item and conducted exploratory factor analyses to examine the factor structure for each year and version of the tool. We developed a revised management framework and PRIME-tool as informed by these exploratory results, further review of management theory literature, and co-author consensus. RESULTS: The majority (17 items in 2016, 23 items in 2017) of PRIME-Tool items exhibited ceiling effects, but only three (2 items in 2016, 3 items in 2017) showed floor effects. Solutions suggested by factor analyses did not fully fit our initial hypothesized management domains. We found five groupings of items that consistently loaded together across each analysis and named these revised domains as Supportive supervision and target setting, Active monitoring and review, Community engagement, Client feedback for improvement, and Operations and financing. CONCLUSION: The revised version of the PRIME-Tool captures a range of important and actionable information on the management of PHC facilities in LMIC contexts. We recommend its use by other investigators and practitioners to further validate its utility in PHC settings. We will continue to refine the PRIME-Tool to arrive at a parsimonious tool for tracking PHC facility management quality. Better understanding the functional components of PHC facility management can help policymakers and frontline managers drive evidence-based improvements in performance.

Assessing the field of health policy and systems research using symposium abstract submissions and machine learning techniques.

The field of health policy and systems research (HPSR) has grown rapidly in the past decade. Examining recently aggregated data from the Global Symposia on Health Systems Research, a key global fora for HPSR convened by the largest international society-Health Systems Global (HSG)-provides opportunities to enhance existing research on HPSR capacity using novel analytical techniques. This addresses the demand not only to map the field but also to examine potential predictors of acceptance to, and participation at, these global conferences to inform future work and strategies in promoting HPSR. We examined data from the abstracts submitted for two Global Symposia on Health Systems Research in 2016 and 2018 by type of institution, countries, regional groupings and gender. After mapping hotspot areas for HPSR production, we then examined how the corresponding author's characteristics were associated with being accepted to present at the Global Symposia. Our findings showed that submissions for the Global Symposia increased by 12% from 2016 to 2018. Submissions increased across all participant groups, in particular, the for-profit organizations and research/consultancy firms showing the highest increases, at 58% for both. We also found reduced submissions from high-income countries, whereas submissions from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, increased substantially revealing the inclusivity values of Symposium organizers. Submissions increased to a larger extent among women than men. Being a woman, coming from a high-income country and having multiple abstracts submitted were found to be significant predictors for an abstract to be accepted and presented in the Symposia. Findings provide critical baseline information on the extent of interest and engagement in a global forum of various institutions and researchers in HPSR that can be useful for setting future directions of HSG and other similar organizations to support the advancement of HPSR worldwide.

Facility management associated with improved primary health care outcomes in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: Strong primary health care (PHC) is essential for achieving universal health coverage, but in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) PHC services are of poor quality. Facility management is hypothesized to be critical for improving PHC performance, but evidence about management performance and its associations with PHC in LMICs remains limited. METHODS: We quantified management performance of PHC facilities in Ghana and assessed the experiences of women who sought care at sampled facilities. Using multi-level models, we examined associations of facility management with five process outcomes and eight experiential outcomes. FINDINGS: On a scale of 0 to 1, the average overall management score in Ghana was 0·76 (IQR = 0·68-0·85). Facility management was significantly associated with one process outcome and three experiential outcomes. Controlling for facility characteristics, facilities with management scores at the 90th percentile (management score = 0·90) had 22% more essential drugs compared to facilities with management scores at the 10th percentile (0·60) (p = 0·002). Positive statistically non-significant associations were also seen with three additional process outcomes-integration of family planning services (p = 0·054), family planning types provided (p = 0·067), and essential equipment availability (p = 0·104). Compared to women who sought care at facilities with management scores at the 10th percentile, women who sought care at facilities at the 90th percentile reported 8% higher ratings of trust in providers (p = 0·028), 15% higher ratings of ease of following provider's advice (p = 0·030), and 16% higher quality rating (p = 0·020). However, women who sought care in the 90th percentile facilities rated their waiting times as worse (22% lower, p = 0·039). INTERPRETATION: Higher management scores were associated with higher scores for some process and experiential outcomes. Large variations in management performance indicate the need to strengthen management practices to help realize the full potential of PHC in improving health outcomes.

Assessment of quality of primary care with facility surveys: a descriptive analysis in ten low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Primary care has the potential to address a large proportion of people's health needs, promote equity, and contain costs, but only if it provides high-quality health services that people want to use. 40 years after the Declaration of Alma-Ata, little is known about the quality of primary care in low-income and middle-income countries. We assessed whether existing facility surveys capture relevant aspects of primary care performance and summarised the quality of primary care in ten low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: We used Service Provision Assessment surveys, the most comprehensive nationally representative surveys of health systems, to select indicators corresponding to three of the process quality domains (competent systems, evidence-based care, and user experience) identified by the Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems in the Sustainable Development Goals Era. We calculated composite and domain quality scores for first-level primary care facilities across and within ten countries with available facility assessment data (Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda). FINDINGS: Data were available for 7049 facilities and 63 869 care visits. There were gaps in measurement of important outcomes such as user experience, health outcomes, and confidence, and processes such as timely action, choice of provider, affordability, ease of use, dignity, privacy, non-discrimination, autonomy, and confidentiality. No information about care competence was available outside maternal and child health. Overall, scores for primary care quality were low (mean 0·41 on a scale of 0 to 1). At a domain level, scores were lowest for user experience, followed by evidence-based care, and then competent systems. At the subdomain level, scores for patient focus, prevention and detection, technical quality of sick-child care, and population-health management were lower than those for other subdomains. INTERPRETATION: Facility surveys do not capture key elements of primary care quality. The available measures suggest major gaps in primary care quality. If not addressed, these gaps will limit the contribution of primary care to reaching the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.