4.3 Article

Policy challenges facing integrated community case management in Sub-Saharan Africa

期刊

TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
卷 19, 期 7, 页码 872-882

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.12319

关键词

child health services; community health services; health policy

资金

  1. UNICEF [43114640]
  2. USAID TRAction project [FY11-G06-6990]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To report an in-depth analysis of policy change for integrated community case management of childhood illness (iCCM) in six sub-Saharan African countries. We analysed how iCCM policies developed and the barriers and facilitators to policy change. METHODS Qualitative retrospective case studies drawing from document reviews, semi-structured interviews and in-country validation workshops were conducted in Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique and Niger. These countries were selected to maximise variation in iCCM policy status, community health worker (CHW) models and different African regions. RESULTS Country iCCM policies evolved in an ad hoc fashion, but were substantially influenced by the history of primary health care and the nature of CHW programmes. Technical officers within Ministries of Health led iCCM policy change with support from international donors, but neither communities nor political leadership was mobilised. Concerns about achieving the Millennium Development Goals, together with recognition of the shortcomings of existing child health programmes, led to the adoption of iCCM policies. Availability of external financing played a critical role in facilitating policy change. CONCLUSIONS iCCM policy change has been promoted by international agencies, but national governments have struggled to align iCCM with country health systems. Greater investment is needed in tailoring global policy initiatives to match country needs. High-level, political ownership of iCCM policies could facilitate policy change, as could clearer strategies for ensuring the long-term sustainability of such policies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据