District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a qualitative study in Uttar Pradesh, India, on engaging the private health sector in sharing health-related data

Meenakshi Gautham, Neil Spicer, Manish Subharwal, Sanjay Gupta, Aradhana Srivastava, Sanghita Bhattacharyya, Bilal Iqbal Avan, Joanna Schellenberg, Meenakshi Gautham, Neil Spicer, Manish Subharwal, Sanjay Gupta, Aradhana Srivastava, Sanghita Bhattacharyya, Bilal Iqbal Avan, Joanna Schellenberg

Abstract

Health information systems are an important planning and monitoring tool for public health services, but may lack information from the private health sector. In this fourth article in a series on district decision-making for health, we assessed the extent of maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH)-related data sharing between the private and public sectors in two districts of Uttar Pradesh, India; analysed barriers to data sharing; and identified key inputs required for data sharing. Between March 2013 and August 2014, we conducted 74 key informant interviews at national, state and district levels. Respondents were stakeholders from national, state and district health departments, professional associations, non-governmental programmes and private commercial health facilities with 3-200 beds. Qualitative data were analysed using a framework based on a priori and emerging themes. Private facilities registered for ultrasounds and abortions submitted standardized records on these services, which is compulsory under Indian laws. Data sharing for other services was weak, but most facilities maintained basic records related to institutional deliveries and newborns. Public health facilities in blocks collected these data from a few private facilities using different methods. The major barriers to data sharing included the public sector's non-standardized data collection and utilization systems for MNCH and lack of communication and follow up with private facilities. Private facilities feared information disclosure and the additional burden of reporting, but were willing to share data if asked officially, provided the process was simple and they were assured of confidentiality. Unregistered facilities, managed by providers without a biomedical qualification, also conducted institutional deliveries, but were outside any reporting loops. Our findings suggest that even without legislation, the public sector could set up an effective MNCH data sharing strategy with private registered facilities by developing a standardized and simple system with consistent communication and follow up.

Keywords: Data sharing; MNCH data; health management information system; private health sector; public health sector; public–private engagement.

© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

References

    1. AbouZahr C, Boerma T. 2005. Health information systems: the foundations of public health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 83: 578–83.
    1. Avan BI, Berhanu D, Umar N et al.District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a feasibility study of a data-informed platform for health in India, Nigeria and Ethiopia Health Policy and Planning 201631:ii3–ii11.
    1. Bhattacharya M, Shahrawat R, Joon V. 2012. Understanding level of maternal and child health indicators used in Health Management Information System among peripheral level health functionaries in two districts of India. Journal of Health Informatics in Developing Countries 6: 385–95.
    1. Bhattacharyya S, Berhanu D, Taddesse N et al.District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a case study of the potential of public and private sector data in India and Ethiopia Health Policy and Planning 201631:ii25–ii34.
    1. Brugha R, Pritz-Aliassime S. 2003. Promoting safe motherhood through the private sector in low and middle income countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 81: 616–23.
    1. de Savigny D, Webster J, Agyepong IA. et al. 2012. Introducing vouchers for malaria prevention in Ghana and Tanzania: context and adoption of innovation in health systems. Health Policy and Planning 27: iv32–43.
    1. Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopath, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH).2015accessed 7 January:
    1. Floyd K, Arora VK, Murthy KJR. et al. 2006. Control and cost-effectiveness of PPM-DOTS for tuberculosis control: evidence from India. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 84: 437–45.
    1. Forsberg BC, Montagu D, Sundewall J. 2011. Editorial: Moving towards in-depth knowledge on the private health sector in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy and Planning 26: i1–3.
    1. Forsberg BC, Montagu D. 2014. Editorial: Further advances in knowledge on the role of the private sector in health systems. Health Policy and Planning 29: i1–3.
    1. Gautham M, Shyamprasad KM, Singh R, et al. 2014. Informal rural healthcare providers in North and South India. Health Policy and Planning 29: i20–9.
    1. Government of India. 2005. Report of the National Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. New Delhi: GOI.
    1. Government of India. 2013. Annual Health Survey 2011-12 Fact Sheet Uttar Pradesh. New Delhi: GOI.
    1. Government of India. 2014. Annual Health Survey Second Updation Bulletin 2012 -13. New Delhi: GOI.
    1. Government of India. 2014. Office Memorandum: RMNCH+A interventions approved to be undertaken by AYUSH practitioners, 10 March 2014. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirmal Bhavan, New Delhi: GOI.
    1. IDEAS. 2012. Data Informed Platform for Health: Feasibility Study Report, Uttar Pradesh, India. London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
    1. Kapilashrami M, Sood A, Sharma B. 2008. Involvement of private sector in health: suggested policy guidelines and mechanisms. Health Administrator XXI: 019–24.
    1. Kapoor SK, Raman AV, Sachdeva KS, Satyanarayana S. 2012. How Did the TB Patients Reach DOTS Services in Delhi? A Study of Patient Treatment Seeking Behavior. PLoS One 7: e42458.
    1. Karnataka Health Promotion Trust and University of Manitoba. 2013. Facility mapping in 25 high priority districts of Uttar Pradesh: a presentation based on the study. Unpublished document.
    1. Manandhar M, Maimbolwa M, Muulu E, Mulenga MM, O’Donovan D. 2008. Intersectoral debate on social research strengthens alliances, advocacy and action for maternal survival in Zambia. Health Promotion International 24: 58–67.
    1. May C, Roth K, Panda P. 2014. Non-degree allopathic practitioners as first contact points for acute illness episodes: insights from a qualitative study in rural northern India. BMC Health Services Research 14: 182.
    1. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 2013. National Health Mission: framework for implementation 2012-2017. New Delhi: GOI.
    1. Pandey A, Roy N, Bhawsar R, Mishra RM. 2010. Health Information System in India: issues of data availability and quality. Demography India 39: 111–28.
    1. Pradhan A, Datye V, Kielmann K. et al. 2011. Sustaining PPM-DOTS: The Case of Pimpri Chinchwad, Maharashtra, India. Indian J Tuberc; 58: 18–28.
    1. Raban M, Dandona R, Dandona L. 2009. Essential health information available for India in the public domain on the internet. BMC Public Health 9.
    1. Simba D. 2004. Application of ICT in strengthening health information systems in developing countries in the wake of globalisation. African Health Sciences 4: 194–8.
    1. Sood N, Burger N, Yoong J, Kopf D, Spreng C. 2011. Firm-level perspectives on public sector engagement with private healthcare providers: survey evidence from Ghana and Kenya. PLoS One 6.
    1. Stansfield S. 2005. Structuring information and incentives to improve health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 83: 562.
    1. Suresh K. 2011. Evidence based communication for health promotion: Indian lessons of last decade. Indian Journal of Public Health 55: 276–85.
    1. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. 1971. Weblink: , accessed 7 December 2015.
    1. The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act. 1994. Weblink: , accessed 7 December 2015.
    1. Times of India. 2015. AYUSH docs may prescribe allopathy drugs. Times of India, 29 April, 2015. , accessed 5 June 2015.
    1. Travis P, Cassels A. 2006. Safe in their hands? Engaging private providers in the quest for public health goals. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 84: 427.
    1. Venkat RA, Bjorkman J. 2008. Public/private partnership in health care services in India. Health Administrator XXI: 62–80.
    1. Wickremasinghe D, Hashmi IE, Schellenberg J, Avan BI. 2016. District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a systematic literature review. Health Policy and Planning. 31:ii12–ii24.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera