| Literature DB >> 25159487 |
Nuggehalli Srinivas Prashanth1, Bruno Marchal, Narayanan Devadasan, Guy Kegels, Bart Criel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health systems interventions, such as capacity-building of health workers, are implemented across districts in order to improve performance of healthcare organisations. However, such interventions often work in some settings and not in others. Local health systems could be visualised as complex adaptive systems that respond variously to inputs of capacity building interventions, depending on their local conditions and several individual, institutional, and environmental factors. We aim at demonstrating how the realist evaluation approach advances complex systems thinking in healthcare evaluation by applying the approach to understand organisational change within local health systems in the Tumkur district of southern India.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25159487 PMCID: PMC4245764 DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-12-42
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Res Policy Syst ISSN: 1478-4505
Figure 1The realist evaluation cycle showing the steps in a realist evaluation study. Figure based on steps described by Pawson and Tilley [20].
Figure 2Tumkur capacity building intervention: structure of the intervention, actors, and their roles. Government actors are shown in blue and non-governmental actors are shown in green. M stands for financial support, T for technical support and O for oversight.
Figure 3The refined programme theory of the intervention showing possible intermediate steps between intervention inputs and expected outcomes. Data collected for the intermediate steps are shown. Grey boxes with stippled border show contextual elements identified as having an influence on the intervention outcomes during the refining of the programme theory. Unshaded boxes indicate the source of data. Boxes shaded black indicate outcomes. Intermediate steps are shown in boxes shaded grey with no border.
Figure 4Government health facility map of Tumkur showing the 10 , the hospitals (secondary care) and PHCs. Green ovals show PHCs; Red polygons show secondary care facilities.
Identifying context-mechanism-outcome frames based on the programme theory of the intervention
| Programme inputs (IPT) and how they were supposed to work | Key assumptions identified during the refining of IPT | Supporting theory | Key contextual factor (C) | Outcome of interest (O) | Plausible mechanism (M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contact classes work through improving knowledge and/or skills, resulting in improved performance | An attitudinal change among the participants is needed to achieve the desired results | Outcomes of training programmes accrue through four hierarchical levels: reaction (to training programme), learning, behaviour, and impact [ | Team dynamics affect the individual’s intention for positive change | Intention to make positive changes | Motivation of the participant towards positive organisational change – a “can-do” attitude |
| Socio-political environment in the | |||||
| Mentoring participants at workplace facilitates application of knowledge and skills | Targeting individuals will produce impact through teams | Workplace environment in healthcare organisations has been identified as an important element explaining application of learning from training programmes [ | Nature of supervision and district’s openness to “allow” change | Identify/seek opportunities to make positive change in the organisation’s performance | Nature of commitment to organisation |
| Decentralised action plans and decision-making at district and lower levels. State and higher levels’ openness to change proposals | Improved annual action plans – better situation analysis, problem identification, allocation and utilisation of resources | Self-efficacy | |||
| A capacitated health manager can become an agent of positive organisational change | Capacity leads to performance | High commitment management literature shows the potential for change by committed staff in settings where resources could be mobilised [ | Change proposals by districts are in line with state (or central) vision and address local needs (allocation and strategic alignment with external environment per Champ et al.’s conceptual framework) [ |
| Claiming and utilising decision spaces; organisational commitment and self-efficacy in negotiating with superiors and community leaders |
| The programme could benefit from alignment with existing policy initiatives |
Assessment of exposure to intervention, key intermediate mechanisms (commitment and efficacy), and outcomes of the 10 of Tumkur
|
| Mentoring 2 | Retention of mentoring 3 |
| Self-efficacy 5 |
| Intention to change 7 | Stability of team 8 | Net change in budget utilisation 9 | Net change in CS rate 10 | Net change in stillbirth rate 11 | Development index 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gubbi | 0.7 | 0.7 | High | AC 2.66 | 68 | 2.5 | 50 | Moderate | 2 | 1 | -16 | 0.95 |
| NC 2.47 | ||||||||||||
| CC 2.42 | ||||||||||||
| Tumkur | 0.7 | 0.7 | Moderate | AC 2.85 | 68 | 2.6 | 75 | Low | 6 | 1.5 | -8 | 1.21 |
| NC 2.46 | ||||||||||||
| CC 2.69 | ||||||||||||
| CN Halli | 0.6 | 0.5 | Moderate | AC 2.75 | 70 | 2.2 | 100 | High | 4 | 0.1 | 0 | 1.02 |
| NC 2.29 | ||||||||||||
| CC 2.71 | ||||||||||||
| Turuvekere | 0.6 | 0.4 | Low | AC 2.81 | 68 | 2.4 | 83 | High | 5 | 5.8 | -4 | 1.06 |
| NC 2.80 | ||||||||||||
| CC 2.47 | ||||||||||||
| Tiptur | 0.5 | 0.5 | Moderate | AC 2.25 | 86 | 2.5 | 75 | Low | -4 | 12.6 | -1 | 1.25 |
| NC 2.33 | ||||||||||||
| CC 3.17 | ||||||||||||
| Koratagere | 0.4 | 0.5 | Low | AC 2.87 | 71 | 2.3 | 20 | Moderate | 3 | 1.8 | -3 | 0.89 |
| NC 2.73 | ||||||||||||
| CC 3.07 | ||||||||||||
| Madhugiri | 0.5 | 0.5 | Low | AC 2.50 | 83 | 2.4 | 40 | High | 4 | 1.3 | -1 | 0.82 |
| NC 2.03 | ||||||||||||
| CC 2.50 | ||||||||||||
| Pavagada | 0.6 | 0.5 | Moderate | AC 2.50 | 79 | 2.3 | 0 | High | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0.78 |
| NC 2.05 | ||||||||||||
| CC 2.28 | ||||||||||||
| Kunigal | 0.6 | 0.5 | High | AC 2.12 | 83 | 2.2 | 75 | Moderate | 2 | 4.9 | -4 | 0.96 |
| NC 2.59 | ||||||||||||
| CC 2.83 | ||||||||||||
| Sira | 0.7 | 0.9 | High | AC 1.80 | 68 | 2.2 | 100 | Moderate | 6 | 8.3 | 2 | 0.81 |
| NC 2.00 | ||||||||||||
| CC 2.67 |
1Average of degree of classroom participation of all participants from a taluka, based on assessment of attendance and classroom activity (assessed by observation notes) expressed on a scale of 0 to 1.
2Average of degree of mentoring received based on attendance of participants at mentoring sessions (0 to 1.0).
3Qualitative assessment of the taluka’s ability to retain interest of the mentor expressed as high, moderate, and low.
4Three dimensions of organisational commitment: Affective commitment (AC), normative commitment (NC), and continuance commitment (CC). Individual commitment measures for each of these three dimensions were computed and the averages of these were calculated by taluka. Commitment scores are on a scale of 0 to 5.
5Self-efficacy scores expressed on a scale of 0 to 100.
6Style of supervision largely assessing supportive nature of supervision (1 to 5; 1 being most supportive and 5 being most authoritative).
7Percentage of ever-trained members in the taluka, who expressed intention to make changes based on the capacity building programme.
8Stability of team assessed based on turnover of health managers in the taluka team from 2009 to 2013 expressed as high, moderate, and low. High indicates stable teams (low turnover).
9The net change in percentage budget utilization from 2009 to 2012. Budget utilisation for each of the PHCs in the taluka was obtained.
10The net change in proportion of caesarean sections (CS) among total deliveries from 2009 to 2012. CS at taluka hospitals is at present very low and efforts are on to improve emergency obstetric care at taluka hospitals through ensuring facilities to perform CS.
11The net change in stillbirth rate (of the total live births in the taluka) from 2009 to 2012. Negative change indicates a fall in stillbirth rate.
12The socio-economic development index for the taluka. Scores less than 1 are considered very poor and such talukas have been designated “backward” [51].
The tools for measuring organizational commitment, self-efficacy, and supportive supervision notes on their validity in Indian settings are discussed elsewhere [39].
Figure 5Annual change in utilization rate of selected of Tumkur district from 2010 to 2012. The net change (from the previous year) in the aggregate budget utilization rates of all facilities in the talukas are shown for CN Halli, Tumkur, Sira, Gubbi, and Madhugiri talukas. The District figures are for utilization rates of budget allocated for disease control programmes and other functions managed at the district level.
Figure 6Stillbirth rates in 2012 by shown against net change in this indicator from 2009 to 2012. Gubbi, Sira, Pavagada, and CN Halli stillbirth rates are labelled.
Figure 7Boxplots of three dimensions of organisational commitment in the 10 of Tumkur district. The three dimensions of commitment are based on Meyer and Allen [44]. AC is affective commitment, NC is normative commitment, and CC is continuance commitment. Individual commitment measures for health managers were computed separately for AC, NC, and CC. For each taluka, box plots of the scores for each of these were plotted.
Figure 8The multipolar performance assessment framework based on Sicotte et al. [29]. The framework consists four poles and six alignments.
Figure 9The alignments that the intervention sought to influence to improve performance are shown in green. The alignments that explain the responses of the cases are shown in red.