Protocol: A realist review of user fee exemption policies for health services in Africa

BMJ Open

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Robert, Emilie ^a   Ridde, Valéry ^a,b   Marchal, Bruno ^c   Fournier, Pierre ^a,b  

^a CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE L UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL MEDICINE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AFRICA; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INTERNAL VALIDITY; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLICATION;

EID: 84857831351     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000706     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Knippenberg R, Alihonou E, Soucat A, et al. Implementation of the Bamako initiative: Strategies in Benin and Guinea. Int J Health Plann Manage 1997;12(Suppl 1):S29-47. (Pubitemid 27326348)
2. Gilson L, Mills A. Health sector reforms in sub-Saharan Africa: lessons of the last 10 years. Health Policy 1995;32:215-43.
3. James C, Hanson K, McPake B, et al. To Retain or Remove user fees? Reflections on the current debate. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006;5:137-53.
4. Laterveer L, Munga M, Shwerzel P. Equity implications of health sector user fees in Tanzania. Do we retain the user fee or do we set the future user f(r)ee?. Leusden: ETC Crystal for REPOA / Partners in International Health, 2004:36.
5. Gilson L. The lessons of user fee experience in Africa. Health Policy Plan 1997;12:273-85.
6. Ridde V, Girard JE. Douze ans après l'initiative de Bamako: constats et implications politiques pour l'équitéd'accès aux services de santé des indigents africains. SantéPublique 2004;1:37-51.
7. Sambo LG, Kirigia JM, Ki-Zerbo G. Perceptions and viewpoints on proceedings of the Fifteenth Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union Debate on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health and Development, 25-27 July 2010, Kampala, Uganda. BMC Proc 2011;5(Suppl 5). http://www. biomedcentral.com/1753-6561/5/S5/S1 (accessed 29 Nov 2011).
8. Commission for Africa. Still our common interest: commission for Africa report 2010. In: Commission for Africa, ed. Commission for Africa. London: Commission for Africa, 2010:68.
9. Ridde V, Robert E, Meessen B. Les pressions exercées par l'abolition du paiement des soins sur les systèmes de santé. In: Health Systems Financing, ed. World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 18. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010:43.
10. Ridde V, Robert E, Guichard A, et al. L'approche Realist à l'épreuve du réel: de quelques défis mé thodologiques. Can J Program Eval 2012;26.
11. Egan M, Bambra C, Petticrew M, et al. Reviewing evidence on complex social interventions: appraising implementation in systematic reviews of the health effects of organisational-level workplace interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009;63:4-11.
12. Blaise P, Marchal B, Lefèvre P, et al. Au-delà des méthodes expérimentales, l'approche réaliste en évaluation. In: Potvin L, Moquet M-J, Jones CM, eds. Guide d'aide à l'action: Inégalités Sociales de Santé. Saint-Denis: Institut national de prévention et d'éducation pour la santé, 2010:285-96.
13. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage Publications, 1997.
14. Julnes G, Mark MM. Evaluation as Sensemaking: knowledge construction in a realist World. In: Henry GT, Julnes G, Mark MM, eds. Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice. San Francisco: New Directions for Evaluation (no.78), 1998:33-52.
15. Chen HT. The roots of theory-driven evaluation. Current views and origins. In: Alkin MC, ed. Evaluation Roots. Tracing Theorists' Views and Influences. London: Sage Publications 2004:132-52.
16. Chen HT, Rossi PH. The Multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: a model linking Basic and Applied social Science. Soc Forces 1980;59:106-22.
17. Stame N. Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation 2004;10:58-76.
18. Pawson R. Nothing as practical as good theory. Evaluation 2003;9:471-90.
19. Pawson R, Sridharan S. Theory-driven evaluation of public health programs. In: Killoran A, Mike K, eds. Evidence-based Public Health: Effectiveness and Efficiency. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010:43-62.
20. Chen H-T. Generalization evaluation. In: Chen HT, ed. Theory-driven Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications 1990:219-54.
21. Chen H-T. Theory-driven evaluations: need, difficulties, and options. Am J Eval 1994;15:79-82.
22. McPake B, Schmidt A, Araujo E, et al. Freeing Up healthcare. A Guide to Removing User Fees. London: Save The Children UK, 2008:44.
23. Meessen B. Removing user fees in the health sector in low-income countries: a policy guidance note for programme managers. In: UNICEF, ed. Health Section Working Paper. New York: UNICEF, 2009:38.
24. Meessen B, Hercot D, Noirhomme M, et al. Removing user fees in the health sector: a review of policy processes in six sub-Saharan African countries. Health Policy Plan 2011;26(Suppl 2):ii16-29.
25. Ridde V, Morestin F. A scoping review of the literature on the abolition of user fees in healthcare services in Africa. Health Policy Plan 2011;26:1-11.
26. Ridde V, Robert E, Meessen B. Les pressions exercées par l'abolition du paiement des soins sur les systèmes de santé. In: WHO Department of Health System Financing, ed. Background Paper for the World Health Report 2010. Geneva: WHO, 2010:43.
27. Sheldon T. Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10(Suppl 1):1-5. (Pubitemid 40993880)
28. Lagarde M, Palmer N. The impact of user fees on access to health services in low- and middle-income countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009094 (accessed 29 Nov 2011).
29. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:376-80. (Pubitemid 27102522)
30. Gilson L, Hanson K, Sheikh K, et al. Building the field of health policy and systems research: social science Matters. PLoS Med 2011;8: e1001079.
31. Shepperd S, Lewin S, Straus S, et al. Can we systematically review studies that Evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Med 2009;6. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000086 (accessed 29 Nov 2011).
32. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews in public health: old chestnuts and new challenges. Bull World Health Organ 2009;87:163-63A.
33. White DG. Evaluating evidence and making judgements of study quality: loss of evidence and risks to policy and practice decisions. Critical Public Health 2001;11:3-17.
34. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009;9. http://www. biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/9/59 (accessed 29 Nov 2011).
35. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, et al. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10:45-53.
36. Jackson N, Waters E; Guidelines for Systematic Reviews of Health Promotion and Public Health Interventions Taskforce. The challenges of systematically reviewing public health interventions. J Public Health (Oxf) 2004;26:303-7. (Pubitemid 39312937)
37. Pope C, Mays N, Popay J. Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence: A guide to methods. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education, 2007.
38. Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, et al. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. Int J Nurs Stud 2009;46:529-46.
39. Pawson R. Evidence-based Policy. A Realist Perspective. London: Sage Publications, 2006.
40. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al. Realist review e a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10(Suppl 1):21-34. (Pubitemid 40993882)
41. Pawson R. Middle-range realism. Eur J Sociol 2000;41:283-325.
42. Merton RK. On sociological theories of the middle range. In: Merton RK, ed. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press 1968:39-72.
43. Rossi PH, Lipsey MW, Freeman HE. Expressing and assessing program theory. In: Rossi PH, ed. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage 2004:133-52.
44. Pawson R. Digging for Nuggets: How 'Bad' Research Can Yield 'Good' Evidence. Leeds, UK: Realist Synthesis: Supplementary reading 6. 2006:15. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/realistsynthesis/supreadings.htm
45. Clamp S, Keen J. Electronic health records: is the evidence base any use? Med Inform Internet Med 2007;32. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/apl/ tmif/2007/00000032/00000001/art00002 (accessed 28 Nov 2011).
46. Dieleman M, Gerretsen B, van der Wilt GJ. Human resource management interventions to improve health workers' performance in low and middle income countries: a realist review. Health Res Policy Syst 2009;7. http://www.health- policy-systems.com/content/7/1/7(accessed 29 Nov 2011).
47. Pluye P, Robert E, Cargo M, et al. Proposal: A Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for Systematic Mixed Studies Reviews. Montréal: McGill University, 2011.
48. Blom B, Morén S. Analysis of generative mechanisms. Journal of Critical Realism 2011;10:60-79.
49. Chen HT, Rossi PH. The theory-driven approach to validity. Eval Program Plann 1987;10:95-103.
50. Devers KJ. How will we know "good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res 1999;34:1153-88.
51. Yates R. Universal health care and the removal of user fees. Lancet 2009;373:2078-81.
52. Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Westhorp G, et al. Protocoldrealist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (RAMESES). BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/115 (accessed 29 Nov 2011).
53. FACOP. About FACOP, 2011. http://www.hha-online.org/hso/financing/ subpillar/Financial-Access-to-Health-Services/about