From: Health system responsiveness: a systematic evidence mapping review of the global literature
Key features or components of conceptualizations | ‘Impact’ of conceptualization in the literature |
---|---|
WHO responsiveness framing: responsiveness as performance goal: 2 categories (respect for patients, patient orientation); 8 domains: â–ª Dignity of a patient; confidentiality of information; autonomy; prompt attention; quality of the amenities; choice of provider; provider-patient communication; social support networks (for in-patients) | â–ª Origin: Stems from WHR2000 [2] â–ª Linked tools: Data collection tool available to measure responsiveness â–ª Traction of idea: Some adaptations suggested for contexts and specific conditions [56, 57] |
WHO responsiveness framing: through a rights-based lens: Adaptation of WHO framing, going further to recognizes that human rights/principles should enhance responsiveness through: â–ª A synergy of interrelated domains namely 1) protecting rights and maintaining health; 2) authority and accountability; and 3) cohesion | â–ª Origin: Gostin et al. offer an adaptation, a conceptual lens to understand responsiveness [202] â–ª Linked tools: Does not provide a tool to measure responsiveness â–ª Traction of idea: No other related empirical work |
Health System Responsiveness Assessment Information System (HS-RAIS): A Framework to measure responsiveness of the information system building block consisting of 10 components: â–ª Minimum datasets; data sources; data gathering; data analysis; feedback and dissemination; legislative needs; objectives of health system responsiveness assessment; repetition period; executive committee; stewardship | â–ª Origin: Fazaeli et al. offer a framework developed after assessing responsiveness of Information Systems in Iran [1] â–ª Linked tools: Tool adapted from WHO tool, for evidence-based decision-making â–ª Traction of idea: No empirical studies found utilizing/testing this idea of responsiveness |
Provider responsiveness for HRH: Conceptual framework to examine provider responsiveness (HRH lens). 5 domains: ▪ Friendliness; Respect; Informing and guiding; Gaining trust; Financial sensitivity | ▪ Origin: Joarder proposes components of provider responsiveness [54], based on the WHO framing ▪ Linked tools: Provides a questionnaire to measure physicians’ responsiveness ▪ Traction of idea: The responsiveness tool developed was used to empirically compare the responsiveness of public and private physicians in rural Bangladesh. |
System-wide determinants of responsiveness: Analytic framework to understand system-wide determinants of responsiveness consisting 4 components: â–ª Environment; Characteristics of population; Access/utilization; Responsiveness | â–ª Origin: Robone et al. offer an adaptation based on WHR2000 [53] â–ª Linked tools: Does not provide a tool to measure responsiveness â–ª Traction of idea: The framework was developed to analyze determinants of responsiveness in 66 countries |
Responsiveness as social accountability: Framing and tool to analyze key relationships of accountability and mechanisms that enhance service responsiveness, comprising 4 mechanism types: ▪ Delegation; Compact (service, policy stakeholders); Voice of citizens; Client power | ▪ Origin: Garza used the World Bank model of relationships for accountability [58] ▪ Linked tools: Does not provide a tool to measure responsiveness ▪ Traction of idea: Model was empirically and analytically employed to analyze Mexico’s HS and three reforms |
Social accountability initiatives for health providers responsiveness â–ª Provider responsiveness is an outcome of citizen engagement and oversight measures â–ª Responsiveness specifically defined as the actual changes/ improvements implemented at service/program level | â–ª Origin: Lodenstein et al. develops this conceptualization out of a realist review, emphasizing context-specificity in regard to social accountability initiatives [13] â–ª Linked tools: Does not provide a tool to measure responsiveness â–ª Traction of idea: No empirical studies found utilizing/testing this idea of responsiveness |
Responsiveness as users’ experiences of HS interaction ▪ Present factors that shape users’ expectations as well as the systems response. The experience of the interaction is central to responsiveness. | ▪ Origin: Mirzoev and Kane offer this conceptualization out of a scoping review, which recognizes historical, political, cultural and socioeconomic context of people-system interaction [14] ▪ Linked tools: Does not provide a tool to measure responsiveness ▪ Traction of idea: No empirical studies found utilizing/testing this idea of responsiveness |