RESUMO
Recent decades of improvements to routine health information systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have increased the volume of health data collected. However, countries continue to face several challenges with quality production and use of information for decision-making at sub-national levels, limiting the value of health information for policy, planning and research. Improving the quality of data production and information use is thus a priority in many LMICs to improve decision-making and health outcomes. This qualitative study identified the challenges of producing and using routine health information in Western Province, Zambia. We analysed the interview responses from 37 health and social sector professionals at the national, provincial, district and facility levels to understand the barriers to using data from the Zambian health management information system (HMIS). Respondents raised several challenges that we categorized into four themes: governance and health system organization, geographic barriers, technical and procedural barriers, and challenges with human resource capacity and staff training. Staff at the facility and district levels were arguably the most impacted by these barriers as they are responsible for much of the labour to collect and report routine data. However, facility and district staff had the least authority and ability to mitigate the barriers to data production and information use. Expectations for information use should therefore be clearly outlined for each level of the health system. Further research is needed to understand to what extent the available HMIS data address the needs and purposes of the staff at facilities and districts.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: While there has been progress in controlling the HIV epidemic, HIV still remains a disease of global concern. Some of the progress has been attributed to increased public awareness and uptake of public health interventions, as well as increased access to anti- retroviral treatment and the prevention of vertical HIV transmission. These interventions would not have been possible without substantial investments in HIV programs. However, donor fatigue introduces the need for low income countries to maximize the benefits of the available resources. This necessitates identification of priorities that should be funded. Evaluating prioritization processes would enable decision makers to assess the effectiveness of their processes, thereby designing intervention strategies. To date most evaluations have focused on cost-benefit analyses, which overlooks additional critical impacts of priority setting decisions. Kapiriri & Martin (2010) developed and validated a comprehensive framework for evaluating PS in low income countries. The objective of this paper report findings from a comprehensive evaluation of priority setting for HIV in Uganda, using the framework; and to identify lessons of good practice and areas for improvement. METHODS: This was a qualitative study based on forty interviews with decision makers and policy document review. Data were analysed using INVIVO 10, and based on the parameters in Kapiriri et al's evaluation framework. RESULTS: We found that HIV enjoys political support, which contributes to the availability of resources, strong planning institutions, and participatory prioritization process based on some criteria. Some of the identified limitations included; undue donor and political influence, priorities not being publicized, and lack of mechanisms for appealing the decisions. HIV prioritization had both positive and negative impacts on the health system. CONCLUSIONS: The framework facilitated a more comprehensive evaluation of HIV priority setting. While there were successful areas, the process could be strengthened by minimizing undue influence of external actors, and support the legitimate institutions to set priorities and implement them. These should also institute mechanisms for publicizing the decisions, appeals and increased accountability. While this paper looked at HIV, the framework is flexible enough to be used in evaluating priority setting for other health programs within similar context.