Measuring sustainability as a programming tool for health sector investments: report from a pilot sustainability assessment in five Nepalese health districts

Macro International Inc., Calverton, MD, USA.
International Journal of Health Planning and Management (Impact Factor: 0.97). 10/2009; 24(4):326-50. DOI: 10.1002/hpm.1012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Sustainability is a critical determinant of scale and impact of health sector development assistance programs. Working with USAID/Nepal implementing partners, we adapted a sustainability assessment framework to help USAID test how an evaluation tool could inform its health portfolio management. The essential first process step was to define the boundaries of the local system being examined. This local system-the unit of analysis of the study-was defined as the health district.We developed a standardized set of assessment tools to measure 53 indicators. Data collection was carried out over 4 weeks by a Nepalese agency. Scaling and combining indicators into six component indices provided a map of progress toward sustainable maternal, child, health, and family planning results for the five districts included in this pilot study, ranked from "no sustainability" to "beginning of sustainability."We conclude that systematic application of the Sustainability Framework could improve the health sector investment decisions of development agencies. It could also give districts an information base on which to build autonomy and accountability. The ability to form and test hypotheses about the sustainability of outcomes under various funding strategies-made possible by this approach-will be a prerequisite for more efficiently meeting the global health agenda.

Download full-text


Available from: Jim Ricca, Aug 19, 2015
  • Source
    • "In other words, there is often no identifiable linearity between cause and ultimate effect, and so a desired ultimate effect does not always commend a clear intervention strategy or predict outcomes. This problem of causality, which is also at the heart of the research process (Argyris, 1997), especially in health (Dowd, 2011; Escarce and Flood, 2011), reaffirms the need to consider multiple interpretations based on ontologies that may operate simultaneously at different levels, as a precursor to choice of both analytical methods and intervention tools (Newbrander, Peercy et al., 2011; Sarriot et al., 2009), because as Dowd (2011) pointed out, 'the approaches to causal questions are discipline specific, often with little overlap', and may have little understanding of the fragility of trying to link the past to the present and the present to the future. This problem of interpretation, especially where there are competing interests, to define the interpretive lens (Pettit, 2010), as we have already outlined, for example, the approach of Morgan (2006), can perhaps be better understood by considering the competing ontologies and epistemologies that have emerged so far, starting with positivism, then the systems approach, complexity theory and by default, often in relation to Fragile States, chaos theory (Carment and Samy, 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to consider capacity development for healthcare in Fragile States and its roles, for example, in securing civil and political stability, as well as improved health, within the various contexts prevailing in fragile settings across the world. As a precursor to this, however, it is important to understand how, in rapidly changing environments, the role and contribution of different donors will have an impact in different ways. This paper sets out to interpret these issues, and what becomes apparent is the need to develop an understanding of the value base of donors, which we demonstrate through the development of a value-based framework. This highlights the separate motivations and choices made by donors, but what is apparent is that all remain within the positivist perspective perhaps for reasons of accountability and transparency. However, the emergence of new interpretations drawing on systems thinking, and followed by complexity theory more recently, in understanding contexts, suggests that the favouring of any one of these perspective can be counterproductive, without a consideration of the contexts in which they occur. In seeking an explanation of these environmental contexts, which also address the perspectives in use, we suggest the use of wider multi-ontology sense-making framework such as Cynefin. Through this approach, analytical insights can be given into the interpretation, decision and intervention processes available in these different and often changing environments, thus enabling greater coherence between donor values and recipient contexts. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    International Journal of Health Planning and Management 07/2013; 28(3). DOI:10.1002/hpm.2140 · 0.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals and advancing the 'global health agenda' demand the achievement of health impact at scale through efficient investments. We have previously offered that sustainability-a necessary condition for successful expansion of programmes-can be addressed in practical terms. Based on benchmarks from actual child survival projects, we assess the expected impact of translating pro-sustainability choices into investment strategies. We review the experience of Save the Children US in Guinea in terms of investment, approach to sustainability and impact. It offers three benchmarks for impact: Entry project (21 lives saved of children under age five per US$100 000), Expansion project (37 LS/US$100k), and Continuation project (100 LS/US$100k). Extrapolating this experience, we model the impact of a traditional investment scenario against a pro-sustainability scenario and compare the deaths averted per dollar spent over five project cycles. The impact per dollar spent on a pro-sustainability strategy is 3.4 times that of a traditional one over the long run (range from 2.2 to 5.7 times in a sensitivity analysis). This large efficiency differential between two investment approaches offers a testable hypothesis for large-scale/long-term studies. The 'bang for the buck' of health programmes could be greatly increased by following a pro-sustainability investment strategy.
    Health Policy and Planning 05/2011; 26(3):187-98. DOI:10.1093/heapol/czq042 · 3.00 Impact Factor
Show more