Health System Governance for Injury Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: a survey of policymakers and policy implementors

Leila Ghalichi* (Corresponding Author), Lucia D'Ambruoso, Equi-Injury Group, Kathryn Chu, Abebe Bekele, Jean Claude Byiringiro, Junaid Razzak, Stephen Tabiri, Agnieszka Ignatowicz, Alice Sitch, Alemayehu Amberbir, Irene Bagahirwa, Napoleon Bellua Sam, Barnabas Alayande, Derbew Fikadu Berhe, Dominic Konadu-Yeboah, Frederick Sarfo-Antwi, Huba Atiq, Komal Abdul Rahim, Leila GhalichiLambert Nkurunziza, Richard Osei, Tamlyn MacQuene, Zaheer Babar Chand, Zabin Wajidal, Adams Dramani, Jane Acquaye, Ebenezer Kwame Amofa, Eric Twizeyimana, Fazila Sahibjan, Ghislaine Umwali, Mohammed Bukari, Mehreen Mustafa, Nadine Mugisha, Pascal Nzasabimana, Tariq Jakhro

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Introduction: Good health system governance is essential for reducing high mortality and morbidity after injury in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Unfortunately, the current state of governance for injury care is not known. This study evaluated governance for injury care in Ghana, Pakistan, Rwanda and South Africa, four LMICs with diverse contexts, to allow understanding of similarities or difference in the status of governance systems in different LMICs.
Method: This cross-sectional study captured the perceptions of 220 respondents (31 policymakers and 189 policy implementers) on injury care governance utilising the Siddiqi governance in health system framework. Input was captured in ten domains: strategic vision; participation & consensus; rule of law; transparency; responsiveness; equity and inclusion; effectiveness and efficiency; accountability; intelligence and information; and ethics.
Result: The median injury care governance score across all domains and countries was 29% (IQR 17-43). The highest median score was achieved in the rule of law (50, 33-67) and the lowest scores were seen in the transparency (0, 0-33), accountability (0, 0-33), and participation & consensus (0, 0-33) domains. Median scores were higher for policymakers (33, 27-48) than for policy implementers (27, 17-42), but the difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: The four studied countries have developed some of the foundations for good injury care governance, although many governance domains require more attention. The gap in awareness between policymakers and policy implementers might reflect a delayed or partial implementation of policies, or lack of communication between sectors. Ensuring equitable access to injury care across LMICs requires investment in all elements of good injury care governance.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere017890
Number of pages10
JournalBMJ Global Health
Volume10
Issue number2
Early online date10 Feb 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2025

Funding

This study is part of the NIHR-funded Global Health Group on Equitable Access to Quality Health Care for Injured People in Four Low- or Middle-Income Countries: Equi-injury. This research was funded by the NIHR (award number 133135) using UK international development funding from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK government.

FundersFunder number
National Institute for Health and Care Research133135

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Health System Governance for Injury Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: a survey of policymakers and policy implementors'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this