| Literature DB >> 32958061 |
Mesele Damte Argaw1, Binyam Fekadu Desta2, Mengistu Asnake Kibret3, Melkamu Getu Abebe2, Wubishet Kebede Heyi2, Elias Mamo2, Tesfaye Gebru2, Chala Gelan2, Bekele Belayhun Tefera3, Temesgen Ayehu Bele4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A twinning partnership is a formal and substantive collaboration between two districts to improve their performance in providing primary healthcare services. The 'win-win' twinning partnership pairs are categorized under relatively high and low-performing districts. The purpose of this formative evaluation is to use the empirically derived systems model as an analytical framework to systematically document the inputs, throughputs and outputs of the twinning partnership strategy.Entities:
Keywords: Ethiopia; Transformation; Twinning partnership; Universal health coverage
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32958061 PMCID: PMC7507737 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05741-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Fig. 1Partnership implementation cycle (6). The figure depicts six steps of partnership implementation cycle and detailed descriptions of activities followed at each stage
Fig. 2The Bergen Model of Collaborative Functioning [19, 20]. BMCF conceptual map adopted to evaluate the twinning partnership strategy implementation in Ethiopia. The framework depicts the relations of inputs, throughputs and outputs of collaborative functioning
Characteristics of selected districts (woredas) in the study area, September; 2019.
| Region | District | Distance form regional capital in Km | Population | Number of Households | Number of Primary Hospitals | Number of Health Centers | Number of Health Posts | Number of schools |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oromia | Illu Gellan | 210 | 86,006 | 19,112 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 19 |
| Chelia | 180 | 108,000 | 24,000 | 1 | 4 | 20 | 22 | |
| SNNP | Damboya | 110 | 108,359 | 24,080 | 1 | 4 | 19 | 19 |
| Hadro Tunto | 140 | 107,644 | 23,921 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 22 | |
| Amhara | Machakel | 230 | 141,167 | 31,370 | 0 | 6 | 27 | 30 |
| Bibugn | 320 | 96,137 | 21,364 | 1 | 4 | 18 | 19 | |
| Tigray | Raya Azebo | 250 | 170,103 | 37,801 | 0 | 7 | 17 | 18 |
| Ofla | 270 | 153,209 | 34,046 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 26 | |
| Overall | Average | 214 | 121,328 | 26,962 | 0.38 | 4.6 | 21 | 22 |
| Total | 1710 | 970,625 | 215,694 | 3 | 37 | 164 | 175 |
Fig. 3Baseline, midterm and end-line measurements against district transformation criteria among partner districts, October 2018 – September 2019. The bins show the trends of improvement from baseline, to midterm and end-line measurements
Correlation summary analysis of each district’s health system performance, October 2018 – September; 2019.
| DHSP | DHSP | DHSP | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Mid-term | End-line | |
| District Health System Performance (DHSP) - Baseline | |||
| Pearson Correlation | 1 | ||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | |||
| N | 8 | ||
| District Health System Performance (DHSP) - Mid-term | |||
| Pearson Correlation | .978** | 1 | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.001 | ||
| N | 8 | 8 | |
| District Health System Performance (DHSP) - End-line | |||
| Pearson Correlation | .936** | .987** | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.001 | 0.001 | |
| N | 8 | 8 | 8 |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
•Perfect: If the value is near ±1 then it said to be a perfect correlation; as one variable increases, the other variable tends to also increase (if positive) or decrease (if negative).
•High degree: If the coefficient value lies between ±0.50 and ± 1 then it is said to be a strong correlation.
•Moderate degree: If the value lies between ±0.30 and ± 0.49 then it is said to be a medium correlation.
•Low degree: When the value lies below + 0.29 then it is said to be a small correlation.
•No correlation: When the value is zero.
Socio-demographic Characteristics of Key Informants, (N = 39), September 2019
| Characteristics | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Region | |
| Tigray | 7 (17.9) |
| Amhara | 8 (20.5) |
| Oromia | 10 (25.6) |
| SNNP | 14 (35.9) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 33 (84.6) |
| Female | 6 (15.4) |
| Profession | |
| Health Officer | 14 (35.9) |
| BSc. Nurse | 9 (23.1) |
| Laboratory Technologist | 5 (12.8) |
| Master’s in Public Health | 3 (7.7) |
| BA in Economics | 2 (5.1) |
| Midwife | 2 (5.1) |
| Health Extension Worker | 2 (5.1) |
| Pharmacy Technician | 1 (2.6) |
| Health Information Technologist | 1 (2.6) |
| Environmental Health Officer | 1 (2.6) |
| Age category | |
| < 25 years | 8 (20.5) |
| 26–35 years | 29 (74.4) |
| 36–45 years | 1 (2.6) |
| 46+ years | 1 (2.6) |
| Mean = 28.5 Years; SD = 5.0 Years; Median 27 years and range 27 Years. | |
| Work experience | |
| < 3 years | 7 (17.9) |
| 4+ years | 32 (82.1) |
Mean = 7.5 Years; SD = 5.0 Years; Median 6 years and range 27 Years