Face and content validity of a prospective multidimensional performance instrument for service delivery in district health systems in low-income countries: a Delphi study

Background Valid performance indicators help to track and improve health services. The aim of this study was to test the face and content validity of a set of performance indicators for service delivery in district health systems of low-income countries. Methods A Delphi method with three stages was used. A panel of experts voted (yes vs no) on the face value of performance indicators. Agreement on the inclusion of indicators was a score of >75% and ≥50% during stages one and two, respectively. During stage three, indicators with a mean score of ≥3.8 on a five-point scale were included. The panel also rated the content validity of the overall set of indicators. Results The panel agreed on the face value of 59 out of 238 performance indicators. Agreement on the content validity of the set of indicators reached 100%. Most of the retained indicators were related to the capacity of health facilities, the quality of maternal and child health services and HIV care and treatment. Conclusions Policymakers in low-income countries could use a set of performance indicators with modest face and high content validity, and mainly aspects of capacity and quality to improve health service delivery in districts.

From Global to Local: strengthening district health systems management as entry point to achieve health-related sustainable development goals

Thailand has performed admirably in its health reform over the last few decades. Healthcare is provided at a relatively low cost and healthcare needs have transitioned to begin to address diseases and mortality of developed countries. The challenges now faced by Thailand are similar to most developed countries reflecting adult mortality and risk factors of an uppermiddle income population and the need to modify institutional structures to reflect these changing circumstances. The approach to these challenges has focused on the ‘implementation of knowledge based health development’ and critically identifies ‘the triangle that moves the mountain’ (health reform) as a movement that mobilises; the creation of relevant knowledge, social movement and political involvement’ to address ‘inter-connected, complex and extremely difficult to solve’ problems. The move to District Health Systems as the access point to healthcare and the service delivery structure demands competent qualified leadership and management. It requires an understanding of the differences in managing professionally dominated complex adaptive systems compared to traditional approaches of managing within bureaucratic structures. This can be best described as managing connected, integrated care focused both on individuals as patients and communities with a strong emphasis on primary healthcare, prevention and evidence-based practice. It also requires an understanding of how distributed networks of practice (DNOP) provide the potential for researchers, practitioners and other agencies and communities to collaborate, learn and improve healthcare across geographic, jurisdictional and organisational boundaries. This approach provides recognition of the need to build the capacity and capability of health professionals in the management and leadership of health systems and Thailand is moving towards this goal in implementing specific health systems management curriculum which focuses on action-based research and learning together at the District health level augurs well for continued ability to address current health challenges and to achieve SDGs. Abbreviations: DHS – District Health System; DNOP – Distributed Networks of Practice; HSRI – Health Systems Research Institute; MoPH – Ministry of Public Health; NHSO – National Health Security Office; SDG – Strategic Development Goal; UHC – Universal Health Coverage.

Do district health systems perform differently because of their managers? Preliminary insights from Indonesia

District health systems (DHS) are central to the global efforts to improve health outcomes but many remain ineffective. In many lowresource settings, despite the generally weak DHS there is evidence that some districts consistently perform well against the odds, and this is often attributed to the calibre of managers leading such districts and their management and leadership (M&L) skills. This paper examines the M&L practices of district health managers in high and low performing districts in Indonesia in an attempt to understand whether the differences in the performance of DHS can be explained, at least in part, by the differences in the performance of their health managers. We employed a mixed methods case study design focusing on two purposefully selected districts. Data were collected in 2011 using questionnaires and in-depth interviews. The preliminary results suggest that M&L practices of managers in the high and low performing districts are similar and provide little explanation for the differences in the performance of the two DHS. Contextual and health system factors offered a much better explanation for the variations in DHS performance.