Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorObare, V
dc.contributor.authorBrolan, CE
dc.contributor.authorHill, PS
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-22T03:38:37Z
dc.date.available2020-12-22T03:38:37Z
dc.date.issued2014-12-20
dc.identifierpii: s12939-014-0123-1
dc.identifier.citationObare, V., Brolan, C. E. & Hill, P. S. (2014). Indicators for Universal Health Coverage: can Kenya comply with the proposed post-2015 monitoring recommendations?. Int J Equity Health, 13 (1), pp.123-. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-014-0123-1.
dc.identifier.issn1475-9276
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/257898
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: Universal Health Coverage (UHC), referring to access to healthcare without financial burden, has received renewed attention in global health spheres. UHC is a potential goal in the post-2015 development agenda. Monitoring of progress towards achieving UHC is thus critical at both country and global level, and a monitoring framework for UHC was proposed by a joint WHO/World Bank discussion paper in December 2013. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of the framework proposed by WHO/World Bank for global UHC monitoring framework in Kenya. METHODS: The study utilised three documents--the joint WHO/World Bank UHC monitoring framework and its update, and the Bellagio meeting report sponsored by WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation--to conduct the research. These documents informed the list of potential indicators that were used to determine the feasibility of the framework. A purposive literature search was undertaken to identify key government policy documents and relevant scholarly articles. A desk review of the literature was undertaken to answer the research objectives of this study. RESULTS: Kenya has yet to establish an official policy on UHC that provides a clear mandate on the goals, targets and monitoring and evaluation of performance. However, a significant majority of Kenyans continue to have limited access to health services as well as limited financial risk protection. The country has the capacity to reasonably report on five out of the seven proposed UHC indicators. However, there was very limited capacity to report on the two service coverage indicators for the chronic condition and injuries (CCIs) interventions. Out of the potential tracer indicators (n = 27) for aggregate CCI-related measures, four tracer indicators were available. Moreover the country experiences some wider challenges that may impact on the implementation and feasibility of the WHO/World Bank framework. CONCLUSION: The proposed global framework for monitoring UHC will only be feasible in Kenya if systemic challenges are addressed. While the infrastructure for reporting the MDG related indicators is in place, Kenya will require continued international investment to extend its capacity to meet the data requirements of the proposed UHC monitoring framework, particularly for the CCI-related indicators.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.titleIndicators for Universal Health Coverage: can Kenya comply with the proposed post-2015 monitoring recommendations?
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12939-014-0123-1
melbourne.affiliation.departmentMelbourne School of Population and Global Health
melbourne.source.titleInternational Journal for Equity in Health
melbourne.source.volume13
melbourne.source.issue1
melbourne.source.pages123-
dc.rights.licenseCC BY
melbourne.elementsid1177332
melbourne.openaccess.pmchttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4296682
melbourne.contributor.authorBrolan, Claire
dc.identifier.eissn1475-9276
melbourne.accessrightsOpen Access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record