We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Although considerable attention has been paid to the use of quantitative methods in health research, there has been limited focus on decentralisation research using a qualitative-driven mixed method design. Decentralisation presents both a problematic concept and methodological challenges, and is more context-specific and is often multi-dimensional. Researchers often consider using more than one method design when researching phenomena is complex in nature.
Aim
To explore the effects of decentralisation on the provision of primary healthcare services.
Methods
Qualitative-driven mixed method design, employing three methods of data collections: focus group discussions (FGDs), semi-structured interviews (SSIs) and participant observations under two components, that is, core component and supplementary components were used. Four FGDs with health service practitioners, three FGDs with district stakeholders, 20 SSIs with health service users and 20 SSIs with national stakeholders were carried out. These were conducted sequentially. NVivo10, a data management program, was utilised to code the field data, employing a content analysis method for searching the underlying themes or concepts in the text material.
Findings
Both positive and negative experiences related to access, quality, planning, supplies, coordination and supervision were identified.
Conclusion
This study suggests some evidence of the effects of decentralisation on health outcomes in general, as well as filling a gap of understanding and examining healthcare through a qualitative-driven mixed methods approach, in particular. Future research in the area of qualitative in-depth understanding of the problems (why decentralisation, why now and what for) would provoke an important data set that benefits the researchers and policy-makers for planning and implementing effective health services.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.