Suchergebnisse

Introduction: Result-Based Financing (RBF) is an umbrella term for financial mechanisms that link incentives to outputs or outcomes. International development agencies are promoting RBF as a viable financing approach for the realization of universal health coverage, with numerous pilot trials, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is limited synthesized evidence on the performance of these mechanisms and the reasons for the lack of RBF institutionalization. This study aims to review the evidence of RBF schemes that have been scaled or institutionalized at a national level, focusing on maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) programming in LMICs. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The authors identified and reviewed country-level RBF evaluation reports for the period between January 2000 and June 2019. Data were extracted from both published and gray literature on RBF application in MNCH using a predesigned matrix. The matrix headers included country of application; program setting; coverage and duration; evaluation design and methods; outcome measures; and key findings. A content thematic analysis approach was used to synthesize the evidence and emerging issues. Results: The review identified 13 reports from 11 countries, predominantly from Sub-Saharan Africa. Performance-based financing was the most common form of RBF initiatives. The majority of evaluation designs were randomized trials. The evaluations focused on outputs, such as coverage and service utilization, rather than outcomes. RBF schemes in all 11 countries expanded their scope, either geographically or accordingly in terms of performance indicators. Furthermore, only three studies conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, and only two included a discussion on RBF's sustainability. Only three countries have institutionalized RBF into their national policy. On the basis of the experience of these three countries, the common enabling factors for institutionalization seem to be political will, domestic fund mobilization, and the incorporation of demand-side RBF tools. Conclusion: RBF evidence is still growing, partial, and inconclusive. This limited evidence may be one of the reasons why many countries are reluctant to institutionalize RBF. Additional research is needed, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness, affordability, and sustainability of RBF programs.

For more than a decade, suicide rates in Australia have shown no improvement despite significant investment in reforms to support regionally driven initiatives. Further recommended reforms by the Productivity Commission call for Federal and State and Territory Government funding for mental health to be pooled and new Regional Commissioning Authorities established to take responsibility for efficient and effective allocation of 'taxpayer money.' This study explores the sufficiency of this recommendation in preventing ongoing policy resistance. A system dynamics model of pathways between psychological distress, the mental health care system, suicidal behaviour and their drivers was developed, tested, and validated for a large, geographically diverse region of New South Wales; the Hunter New England and Central Coast Primary Health Network (PHN). Multi-objective optimisation was used to explore potential discordance in the best-performing programs and initiatives (simulated from 2021 to 2031) across mental health outcomes between the two state-governed Local Health Districts (LHDs) and the federally governed PHN. Impacts on suicide deaths, mental health-related emergency department presentations, and service disengagement were explored. A combination of family psychoeducation, post-attempt aftercare, and safety planning, and social connectedness programs minimises the number of suicides across the PHN and in the Hunter New England LHD (13.5% reduction; 95% interval, 12.3–14.9%), and performs well in the Central Coast LHD (14.8% reduction, 13.5–16.3%), suggesting that aligned strategic decision making between the PHN and LHDs would deliver substantial impacts on suicide. Results also highlighted a marked trade-off between minimising suicide deaths versus minimising service disengagement. This is explained in part by the additional demand placed on services of intensive suicide prevention programs leading to increases in service disengagement as wait times for specialist community based mental health services and dissatisfaction with quality of care increases. Competing priorities between the PHN and LHDs (each seeking to optimise the different outcomes they are responsible for) can undermine the optimal impact of investments for suicide prevention. Systems modelling provides essential regional decision analysis infrastructure to facilitate coordinated federal and state investments for optimal impacts.

Introduction: This paper examines the process of developing a Research for Impact Tool in the contexts of general fiscal constraint, increased competition for funding, perennial concerns about the over-researching of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues without demonstrable benefits as well as conceptual and methodological difficulties of evaluating research impact. The aim is to highlight the challenges and opportunities involved in evaluating research impact to serve as resource for potential users of the research for impact tool and others interested in assessing the impact of research. Material and Methods: A combination of literature reviews, workshops with researchers and reflections by project team members and partners using participatory snowball techniques. Results: Assessing research impact is perceived to be difficult, akin to so-called 'wicked problem', but not impossible. Heuristic and collaborative approach to research that takes in the expectations of research users, those being researched and the funders of research offers a pragmatic solution to evaluating research impact. The logic of the proposed Research for Impact Tool (Figure 2) is based on the understanding that the value of research is to create evidence and/or products to support smarter decisions so as to improve the human condition. Research is therefore of limited value unless the evidence created is used to make smarter decisions for the betterment of society. A practical way of approaching research impact is therefore to start with the decisions confronting decision makers whether they are government policymakers, industry, professional practitioners or households and the extent to which the research supports them to make smarter policy and practice decisions and the knock-on consequences of doing so. Embedded at each step in the impact planning and tracking process is the need for appropriate mix of expertise, capacity enhancement and collaborative participatory learning by doing approaches. Discussion: The tool was developed in the context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research but the basic idea that the way to assess research impact is to start upfront with the information needs of decisions makers is equally applicable to research in other settings, both applied (horizontal) and basic (vertical) research. The tool will be further tested and evaluated with researchers over the next two years (2016/17). The wider challenge is to engage with major Australian research funding agencies to ensure consistent alignment and approaches across research users, communities and funders in evaluating impact.

Introduction: Poverty and deprivation can harm children's future health, learning, economic productivity and societal participation. The Australian Healthier Wealthier Families project seeks to reduce the childhood inequities caused by poverty and deprivation by creating a systematic referral pathway between two free, community-based services: universal, well-child nursing services, which provide health and development support to families with children from birth to school entry, and financial counselling. By adapting the successful Scottish 'Healthier Wealthier Children' model, the objectives of this Australian pilot are to test the (1) feasibility of systematising the referral pathway, and (2) short-term impacts on household finances, caregiver health, parenting efficacy and financial service use. Methods and analysis: This pilot randomised controlled trial will run in three sites across two Australian states (Victoria and New South Wales), recruiting a total of 180 participants. Nurses identify eligible caregivers with a 6-item, study-designed screening survey for financial hardship. Caregivers who report one or more risk factors and consent are randomised. The intervention is financial counselling. The comparator is usual care plus information from a government money advice website. Feasibility will be evaluated using the number/proportion of caregivers who complete screening, consent and research measures, and access financial counselling. Though powered to assess feasibility, impacts will be measured 6 months post-enrolment with qualitative interviews and questionnaires about caregiver-reported income, loans and costs (adapted from national surveys, for example, the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey); health (General Health Questionnaire 1, EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale short-form); efficacy (from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children); and financial service use (study designed) compared between arms. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics committees of the Royal Children's Hospital (HREC/57372/RCHM-2019) and South West Sydney Local Health District (2019/ETH13455) have approved the study. Participants and stakeholders will receive results through regular communication channels comprising meetings, presentations and publications. Trial registration number ACTRN12620000154909; prospectively registered. Pre-results.