↓ Skip to main content

Decentralization and health system performance – a focused review of dimensions, difficulties, and derivatives in India

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
322 Mendeley
Title
Decentralization and health system performance – a focused review of dimensions, difficulties, and derivatives in India
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1784-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bhuputra Panda, Harshad P. Thakur

Abstract

One of the principal goals of any health care system is to improve health through the provision of clinical and public health services. Decentralization as a reform measure aims to improve inputs, management processes and health outcomes, and has political, administrative and financial connotations. It is argued that the robustness of a health system in achieving desirable outcomes is contingent upon the width and depth of 'decision space' at the local level. Studies have used different approaches to examine one or more facets of decentralization and its effect on health system functioning; however, lack of consensus on an acceptable framework is a critical gap in determining its quantum and quality. Theorists have resorted to concepts of 'trust', 'convenience' and 'mutual benefits' to explain, define and measure components of governance in health. In the emerging 'continuum of health services' model, the challenge lies in identifying variables of performance (fiscal allocation, autonomy at local level, perception of key stakeholders, service delivery outputs, etc.) through the prism of decentralization in the first place, and in establishing directed relationships among them. This focused review paper conducted extensive web-based literature search, using PubMed and Google Scholar search engines. After screening of key words and study objectives, we retrieved 180 articles for next round of screening. One hundred and four full articles (three working papers and 101 published papers) were reviewed in totality. We attempted to summarize existing literature on decentralization and health systems performance, explain key concepts and essential variables, and develop a framework for further scientific scrutiny. Themes are presented in three separate segments of dimensions, difficulties and derivatives. Evaluation of local decision making and its effect on health system performance has been studied in a compartmentalized manner. There is sparse evidence about innovations attributable to decentralization. We observed that in India, there is very scant evaluative study on the subject. We didn't come across a single study examining the perception and experiences of local decision makers about the opportunities and challenges they faced. The existing body of evidences may be inadequate to feed into sound policy making. The principles of management hinge on measurement of inputs, processes and outputs. In the conceptual framework we propose three levels of functions (health systems functions, management functions and measurement functions) being intricately related to inputs, processes and outputs. Each level of function encompasses essential elements derived from the synthesis of information gathered through literature review and non-participant observation. We observed that it is difficult to quantify characteristics of governance at institutional, system and individual levels except through proxy means. There is an urgent need to sensitize governments and academia about how best more objective evaluation of 'shared governance' can be undertaken to benefit policy making. The future direction of enquiry should focus on context-specific evidence of its effect on the entire spectrum of health system, with special emphasis on efficiency, community participation, human resource management and quality of services.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 322 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 322 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 70 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 12%
Researcher 37 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 52 16%
Unknown 84 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 12%
Social Sciences 39 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 19 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 4%
Other 56 17%
Unknown 100 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,680,971
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,135
of 7,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,599
of 312,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#19
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.