Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

IMPROVING ACCESS TO SKILLED ATTENDANCE AT DELIVERY: A POLICY BRIEF FOR UGANDA

  • Harriet Nabudere (a1), Delius Asiimwe (a1) and Jacinto Amandua (a2)
Abstract

Objective: This study describes the process of production, findings for a policy brief on Increasing Access to Skilled Birth Attendance, and subsequent use of the report by policy makers and others from the health sector in Uganda.

Methods: The methods used to prepare the policy brief use the SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health policy making. The problem that this evidence brief addresses was identified through an explicit priority setting process involving policy makers and other stakeholders, further clarification with key informant interviews of relevant policy makers, and review of relevant documents. A working group of national stakeholder representatives and external reviewers commented on and contributed to successive drafts of the report. Research describing the problem, policy options, and implementation considerations was identified by reviewing government documents, routinely collected data, electronic literature searches, contact with key informants, and reviewing the reference lists of relevant documents that were retrieved.

Results: The proportion of pregnant women delivering from public and private non-profit facilities was low at 34 percent in 2008/09. The three policy options discussed in the report could be adopted independently or complementary to the other to increase access to skilled care. The Ministry of Health in deliberating to provide intrapartum care at first level health facilities from the second level of care, requested for research evidence to support these decisions. Maternal waiting shelters and working with the private-for-profit sector to facilitate deliveries in health facilities are promising complementary interventions that have been piloted in both the public and private health sector. A combination of strategies is needed to effectively implement the proposed options as discussed further in this article.

Conclusions: The policy brief report was used as a background document for two stakeholder dialogue meetings involving members of parliament, policy makers, health managers, researchers, civil society, professional organizations, and the media.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1.Lavis, JN, Wilson, MG, Oxman, AD, et al.SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 5: Using research evidence to frame options to address a problem. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;(Suppl 1):S5.
2.Lavis, JN, Wilson, MG, Oxman, AD, Lewin, S, Fretheim, A.SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 4: Using research evidence to clarify a problem. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 (Suppl 1):S4.
3.Fretheim, A, Munabi-Babigumira, S, Oxman, AD, Lavis, JN, Lewin, S.SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed policymaking in health 6: Using research evidence to address how an option will be implemented. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;(Suppl 1):S5.
4.Supporting the Use of Research Evidence(SURE) in African Health Systems. SURE guides for preparing and using policy briefs: 6. Identifying and addressing barriers to implementing the options. http://www.who.int/evidence/resources/country_reports/africa/en/index5.html
5.Supporting the Use of Research Evidence(SURE) in African Health Systems. SURE guides for preparing and using policy briefs: 5. Deciding on and describing options to address the problem. http://www.who.int/evidence/resources/country_reports/africa/en/index5.html
6.UN. United Nations Millenium Development Goals. New York: United Nations; 2000. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/maternal.shtml (accessed March 17, 2011).
7.WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, Bank W. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2008. Estimates developed by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2010.
8.UBOS. Uganda demographic and health survey 2006. Kampala: UBOS; 2006.
9.Bhutta Zulfiqar, A, Chopra, M, Axelson, H, et al.Countdown to 2015 decade report (2000–10): Taking stock of maternal, newborn, and child survival. Lancet. 2010;375:20322044.
10.Ministry of Health. Health sector strategic and investment plan. Kampala: Ministry of Health; 2010.
11.Amandua, J.Concept paper on institutionalizing deliveries at health centre IIs. Kampala: Ministry of Health, Services C; 2011 February 25, 2011.
12.UNFPA. Consensus and concerns. Regional Workshop on Skilled Birth Attendants in South and West Asia. Islamabad, Pakistan: UNFPA; April 19–21, 2004.
13.WHO. Disease and injury country estimates (2004) [database on the Internet]. World Health Organisation. 2009. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/2004_report_update/en/index.html (accessed February 22, 2013).
14.Ministry of Health. Uganda human resources for health policy. Kampala: Ministry of Health; 2006.
15.Kiwanuka, S, Ekirapa, E, Peterson, S, et al.Access to and utilisation of health services for the poor in Uganda: A systematic review of available evidence. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008;102:1067–74.
16.Akin, J, Hutchinson, P.Health facility choice and the phenomenon of by-passing. Health Policy Plann. 1999;14:135151.
17.Parkhurst, JO, Ssengooba, F.Assessing access barriers to maternal health care: Measuring bypassing to identify health centre needs in rural Uganda. Health Policy Plann. 2009;24:377384.
18.Witter, S, Osiga, G.Health service quality and users’ perceptions in West Nile, Uganda. Int J Health Plann Mgmt. 2004;19:195207.
19.AbouZahr, C.Maternal mortality overview. In: Health dimensions of sex and reproduction. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.
20.Ministry of Health. The basic package of health services. Kampala: Ministry of Health; 1997.
21.De Brouwere, V, Van Lerberghe, W, editors. Safe motherhood strategies: A review of the evidence. Antwerp: ITG Press; 2001.
22.Berman, P.Organization of ambulatory care provision: A critical determinant of health system performance in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78:791802.
23.van Lonkhuijzen, L, Stekelenburg, J, van Roosmalen, J. Maternity waiting facilities for improving maternal and neonatal outcome in low-resource countries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. 2009. http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD006759/frame.html (accessed February 22, 2013).
24.Dudley, L. Do maternity waiting facilities improve maternal and perinatal outcomes in low resource settings? A SUPPORT Summary of a systematic review. 2010. http://www.who.int/evidence/resources/country_reports/africa/en/index5.html
25.Mbonye, AK, Asimwe, JB.Factors associated with skilled attendance at delivery in Uganda: Results from a national health facility survey. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2010;22:249255.
26.van Lonkhuijzen, L, Stegeman, M, Nyirongo, R, van Roosmalen, J.Use of maternity waiting home in rural Zambia. Afr J Reprod Health. 2003;7:32–6.
27.Lee, AC, Lawn, JE, Cousens, S, et al.Linking families and facilities for care at birth: What works to avert intrapartum-related deaths? Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;107 (Suppl 1):S65S85, S86S88.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed