↓ Skip to main content

Scaling-up strategic purchasing: analysis of health system governance imperatives for strategic purchasing in a free maternal and child healthcare programme in Enugu State, Nigeria

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
Title
Scaling-up strategic purchasing: analysis of health system governance imperatives for strategic purchasing in a free maternal and child healthcare programme in Enugu State, Nigeria
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3078-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Chukwuemeka Ogbuabor, Obinna Emmanuel Onwujekwe

Abstract

Significant knowledge gaps exist in the functioning of institutional designs and organisational practices in purchasing within free healthcare schemes in low resource countries. The study provides evidence of the governance requirements to scale up strategic purchasing in free healthcare policies in Nigeria and other low-resource settings facing similar approaches. The study was conducted at the Ministry of Health and in two health districts in Enugu State, Nigeria, using a qualitative case study design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 44 key health system actors (16 policymakers, 16 providers and 12 health facility committee leaders) purposively selected from the Ministry of Health and the two health districts. Data collection and analysis were guided by Siddiqi and colleagues' health system governance framework. Data were analysed using a framework approach. The key findings show that supportive governance practices in purchasing included systems to verify questionable provider claims, pay providers directly for services, compel providers to procure drugs centrally and track transfer of funds to providers. However, strategic vision was undermined by institutional conflicts, absence of purchaser-provider split and lack of selective contracting of providers. Benefit design was not based on stakeholder involvement. Rule of law was limited by delays in provider payment. Benefits and obligations to users were not transparent. The criteria and procedure for resource allocation were unclear. Some target beneficiaries seemed excluded from the scheme. Effectiveness and efficiency was constrained by poor adherence to purchasing rules. Accountability of purchasers and providers to users was weak. Intelligence and information is constrained by paper-based system. Rationing of free services by providers and users' non-adherence to primary gate-keeping role hindered ethics. Weak governance of purchasing function limits potential of FMCHP to contribute towards universal health coverage. Appropriate governance model for strengthening strategic purchasing in the FMCHP and possibly free healthcare interventions in other low-resource countries must pay attention to the creation of an autonomous purchasing agency, clear framework for selective contracting, stakeholder involvement, transparent benefit design, need-based resource allocation, efficient provider payment methods, stronger roles for citizens, enforcement of gatekeeping rules and use of data for decision-making.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 179 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 17%
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 55 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 13%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 5%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 66 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,814,924
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,573
of 7,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,525
of 329,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#92
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 329,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.