How do patient feedback systems work in low-income and middle-income countries? Insights from a realist evaluation in Bangladesh.

health policy health services research health systems health systems evaluation

Journal

BMJ global health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Titre abrégé: BMJ Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685275

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2021
Historique:
received: 02 11 2020
revised: 21 12 2020
accepted: 20 01 2021
entrez: 11 2 2021
pubmed: 12 2 2021
medline: 25 6 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Well-functioning patient feedback systems can contribute to improved quality of healthcare and systems accountability. We used realist evaluation to examine patient feedback systems at health facilities in Bangladesh, informed by theories of citizenship and principal-agent relationships. We collected and analysed data in two stages, using: document review; secondary analysis of data from publicly available web-portals; in-depth interviews with patients, health workers and managers; non-participant observations of feedback environments; and stakeholder workshops. Stage 1 focused on identifying and articulating the initial programme theory (PT) of patient feedback systems. In stage 2, we iteratively tested and refined this initial theory, through analysing data and grounding emerging findings within substantive theories and empirical literature, to arrive at a refined PT. Multiple patient feedback systems operate in Bangladesh, essentially comprising stages of collection, analysis and actions on feedback. Key contextual enablers include political commitment to accountability, whereas key constraints include limited patient awareness of feedback channels, lack of guidelines and documented processes, local political dynamics and priorities, institutional hierarchies and accountability relationships. Findings highlight that relational trust may be important for many people to exercise citizenship and providing feedback, and that appropriate policy and regulatory frameworks with clear lines of accountability are critical for ensuring effective patient feedback management within frontline healthcare facilities. Theories of citizenship and principal-agent relationships can help understand how feedback systems work through spotlighting the citizenship identity and agency, shared or competing interests, and information asymmetries. We extend the understanding of these theories by highlighting how patients, health workers and managers act as both principals and agents, and how information asymmetry and possible agency loss can be addressed. We highlight the importance of awareness raising and non-threatening environment to provide feedback, adequate support to staff to document and analyse feedback and timely actions on the information.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Well-functioning patient feedback systems can contribute to improved quality of healthcare and systems accountability. We used realist evaluation to examine patient feedback systems at health facilities in Bangladesh, informed by theories of citizenship and principal-agent relationships.
METHODS
We collected and analysed data in two stages, using: document review; secondary analysis of data from publicly available web-portals; in-depth interviews with patients, health workers and managers; non-participant observations of feedback environments; and stakeholder workshops. Stage 1 focused on identifying and articulating the initial programme theory (PT) of patient feedback systems. In stage 2, we iteratively tested and refined this initial theory, through analysing data and grounding emerging findings within substantive theories and empirical literature, to arrive at a refined PT.
RESULTS
Multiple patient feedback systems operate in Bangladesh, essentially comprising stages of collection, analysis and actions on feedback. Key contextual enablers include political commitment to accountability, whereas key constraints include limited patient awareness of feedback channels, lack of guidelines and documented processes, local political dynamics and priorities, institutional hierarchies and accountability relationships. Findings highlight that relational trust may be important for many people to exercise citizenship and providing feedback, and that appropriate policy and regulatory frameworks with clear lines of accountability are critical for ensuring effective patient feedback management within frontline healthcare facilities.
CONCLUSION
Theories of citizenship and principal-agent relationships can help understand how feedback systems work through spotlighting the citizenship identity and agency, shared or competing interests, and information asymmetries. We extend the understanding of these theories by highlighting how patients, health workers and managers act as both principals and agents, and how information asymmetry and possible agency loss can be addressed. We highlight the importance of awareness raising and non-threatening environment to provide feedback, adequate support to staff to document and analyse feedback and timely actions on the information.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33568396
pii: bmjgh-2020-004357
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004357
pmc: PMC7878124
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P004105/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: One coauthor (AAC) worked for the MOHFW at the time of this study.

Références

Health Policy Plan. 2015 Feb;30(1):111-20
pubmed: 24374717
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Feb;222:154-161
pubmed: 30641285
BMJ Open. 2015 Nov 02;5(11):e008614
pubmed: 26525721
Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2010;23(3):301-11
pubmed: 20535902
Lancet. 2014 Mar 22;383(9922):1013
pubmed: 24656183
BMC Med. 2016 Jun 24;14(1):96
pubmed: 27342217
Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 16;10:49
pubmed: 25885787
Health (London). 2018 Nov;22(6):603-623
pubmed: 28830300
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Aug;29(8):684-695
pubmed: 32019824
Health Policy. 2017 Jan;121(1):75-81
pubmed: 27889081
J Clin Nurs. 2018 Mar;27(5-6):e1004-e1012
pubmed: 29052343
Health Serv Manage Res. 2011 May;24(2):91-5
pubmed: 21471579
Health Policy Plan. 2014 Sep;29(6):685-93
pubmed: 23411121
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Oct 31;2(4):e000486
pubmed: 29225953
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 5;7(6):e017743
pubmed: 28679679
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Jul;22(7):525-7
pubmed: 23576773
Glob Health Action. 2018;11(1):1458938
pubmed: 29658393
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Aug;23(8):678-89
pubmed: 24876289
Int J Nurs Pract. 2009 Dec;15(6):534-42
pubmed: 19958408
Health Policy Plan. 2012 Oct;27(7):541-54
pubmed: 22279082
SAGE Open Med. 2015 Oct 09;3:2050312115610127
pubmed: 26770804
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Sep;63(6):1637-47
pubmed: 16828215
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Apr;19(2):148-57
pubmed: 20351164
Int J Nurs Pract. 2012 Oct;18(5):471-80
pubmed: 23009376
J Clin Nurs. 2015 Aug;24(15-16):2106-14
pubmed: 25661674
Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 07;2:98
pubmed: 24199936
Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2012;25(5):453-61
pubmed: 22946244
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 25;17(1):81
pubmed: 28122552
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014 Nov;40(11):484-12
pubmed: 26111366
Health Policy Plan. 2020 Nov 20;35(9):1244-1253
pubmed: 33450765
Lancet. 2014 Sep 13;384(9947):955-6
pubmed: 25220972
BMJ Open. 2012 Nov 29;2(6):
pubmed: 23204076
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2013 Jul 13;1(2):143-6
pubmed: 24596854
Nurs Ethics. 2001 Nov;8(6):487-98
pubmed: 16004104
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017 Oct;43(10):498-507
pubmed: 28942774
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Jun;19(3):158-63
pubmed: 17449481
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Oct;19(5):e28
pubmed: 20547707
Health Serv Manage Res. 2010 Feb;23(1):5-11
pubmed: 20150604
Int J Qual Health Care. 2018 Mar 1;30(2):145-151
pubmed: 29300956

Auteurs

Tolib Mirzoev (T)

Nuffield Centre for International Health and Development, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK T.Mirzoev@leeds.ac.uk.

Sumit Kane (S)

Nossal Institute for Global Health Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Zunayed Al Azdi (Z)

Research and Development, ARK Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Bassey Ebenso (B)

Nuffield Centre for International Health and Development, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Ayesha Afroz Chowdhury (AA)

Department of Community Medicine, Sir Salimullah Medical College, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Rumana Huque (R)

Research and Development, ARK Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Department of Economics, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH