RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: User fees for primary care services were removed in rural districts in Zambia in 2006. Experience from other countries has suggested that health workers play a key role in determining the success of a fee removal policy, but also find the implementation of such a policy challenging. The policy was introduced against a backdrop of a major shortage in qualified health staff. METHODS: As part of a larger study on the experience and effect of user fee removal in Zambia, a number of case studies at the facility level were conducted. As part of these, quantitative and qualitative data were collected to evaluate health workers' satisfaction and experiences in charging and non-charging facilities. RESULTS: Our findings show that health-care workers have mixed feelings about the policy change and its consequences. We found some evidence that personnel motivation was higher in non-charging facilities compared to facilities still charging. Yet it is unclear whether this effect was due to differences in the user fee policy or to the fact that a lot of staff interviewed in non-charging facilities were working in mission facilities, where we found a significantly higher motivation. Health workers expressed satisfaction with an apparent increase in the number of patients visiting the facilities and the removal of a deterring factor for many needy patients, but also complained about an increased workload. Furthermore, working conditions were said to have worsened, which staff felt was linked to the absence of additional resources to deal with the increased demand or replace the loss of revenue generated by fees. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the need to pay attention to supply-side measures when removing demand-side barriers such as user fees and in particular to be concerned about the burden that increased demand can place on already over-stretched health workers.
RESUMEN
In this study, we analysed stakeholder perceptions of the process of implementing the coordination of health-sector aid in Zambia, Africa. The aim of coordination of health aid is to increase the effectiveness of health systems and to ensure that donors comply with national priorities. With increases in the number of donors involved and resources available for health aid globally, the attention devoted to coordination worldwide has risen. While the theoretical basis of coordination has been relatively well-explored, less research has been carried out on the practicalities of how such coordination is to be implemented. In our study, we focused on potential differences between the views of the stakeholders, both government and donors, on the systems by which health aid is coordinated. A qualitative case study was conducted comprising interviews with government and donor stakeholders in the health sector, as well as document review and observations of meetings. Results suggested that stakeholders are generally satisfied with the implementation of health-sector aid coordination in Zambia. However, there were differences in perceptions of the level of coordination of plans and agreements, which can be attributed to difficulties in harmonizing and aligning organizational requirements with the Zambian health-sector plans. In order to achieve the aims of the Paris Declaration; to increase harmonization, alignment and ownership--resources from donors must be better coordinated in the health sector planning process. This requires careful consideration of contextual constraints surrounding each donor.