Stakeholder perceptions and experiences from the implementation of the Gratuité user fee exemption policy in Burkina Faso: a qualitative study.
Burkina Faso
Experience
Health policy
Perception
Universal health coverage
User fees
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jun 2023
06 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
16
01
2023
accepted:
18
05
2023
medline:
8
6
2023
pubmed:
7
6
2023
entrez:
6
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In 2016, the Gratuité policy was initiated by the Government of Burkina Faso to remove user fees for maternal, newborn, and child Health (MNCH) services. Since its inception, there has not been any systematic capture of experiences of stakeholders as it relates to the policy. Our objective was to understand the perceptions and experiences of stakeholders regarding the implementation of the Gratuité policy. We used key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to engage national and sub-national stakeholders in the Centre and Hauts-Bassin regions. Participants included policymakers, civil servants, researchers, non-governmental organizations in charge of monitoring the policy, skilled health personnel, health facility managers, and women who used MNCH services before and after the policy implementation. Topic guides aided sessions, which were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used for data synthesis. There were five key themes emerging. First, majority of stakeholders have a positive perception of the Gratuité policy. Its implementation approach is deemed to have strengths including government leadership, multi-stakeholder involvement, robust internal capacity, and external monitoring. However, collateral shortage of financial and human resources, misuse of services, delays in reimbursement, political instability and health system shocks were highlighted as concerns that compromise the government's objective of achieving universal health coverage (UHC). However, many beneficiaries were satisfied at the point of use of MNHC services, though Gratuité did not always mean free to the service users. Broadly, there was consensus that the Gratuité policy has contributed to improvements in health-seeking behavior, access, and utilization of services, especially for children. However, the reported higher utilization is leading to some perceived increased workload and altered health worker attitude. There is a general perception that the Gratuité policy is achieving what it set out to do, which is to increase access to care by removing financial barriers. While stakeholders recognized the intention and value of the Gratuité policy, and many beneficiaries were satisfied at the point of use, inefficiencies in its implementation undermines progress. As the country moves towards the goal of realizing UHC, reliable investment in the Gratuité policy is needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In 2016, the Gratuité policy was initiated by the Government of Burkina Faso to remove user fees for maternal, newborn, and child Health (MNCH) services. Since its inception, there has not been any systematic capture of experiences of stakeholders as it relates to the policy. Our objective was to understand the perceptions and experiences of stakeholders regarding the implementation of the Gratuité policy.
METHODS
METHODS
We used key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to engage national and sub-national stakeholders in the Centre and Hauts-Bassin regions. Participants included policymakers, civil servants, researchers, non-governmental organizations in charge of monitoring the policy, skilled health personnel, health facility managers, and women who used MNCH services before and after the policy implementation. Topic guides aided sessions, which were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used for data synthesis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were five key themes emerging. First, majority of stakeholders have a positive perception of the Gratuité policy. Its implementation approach is deemed to have strengths including government leadership, multi-stakeholder involvement, robust internal capacity, and external monitoring. However, collateral shortage of financial and human resources, misuse of services, delays in reimbursement, political instability and health system shocks were highlighted as concerns that compromise the government's objective of achieving universal health coverage (UHC). However, many beneficiaries were satisfied at the point of use of MNHC services, though Gratuité did not always mean free to the service users. Broadly, there was consensus that the Gratuité policy has contributed to improvements in health-seeking behavior, access, and utilization of services, especially for children. However, the reported higher utilization is leading to some perceived increased workload and altered health worker attitude.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There is a general perception that the Gratuité policy is achieving what it set out to do, which is to increase access to care by removing financial barriers. While stakeholders recognized the intention and value of the Gratuité policy, and many beneficiaries were satisfied at the point of use, inefficiencies in its implementation undermines progress. As the country moves towards the goal of realizing UHC, reliable investment in the Gratuité policy is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37280694
doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-01008-3
pii: 10.1186/s12961-023-01008-3
pmc: PMC10243699
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
46Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 9;17(9):e0274110
pubmed: 36083978
Int Health. 2020 Jan 1;12(1):11-18
pubmed: 30806665
Health Policy Plan. 2020 Mar 1;35(2):153-166
pubmed: 31746998
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 21;12(11):e058077
pubmed: 36410840
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021 Sep 01;10(9):564-577
pubmed: 32610819
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Health Policy Plan. 2011 Jan;26(1):1-11
pubmed: 20547653
Health Policy Plan. 2008 Sep;23(5):308-17
pubmed: 18701552
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 16;(8):CD008856
pubmed: 27528494
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760
pubmed: 26613970
Hum Resour Health. 2020 Jun 8;18(1):43
pubmed: 32513184
Health Policy Plan. 2018 Oct 1;33(8):948-956
pubmed: 30256941
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Jul 28;2(2):e000310
pubmed: 29081998
Health Policy Plan. 2011 Nov;26 Suppl 2:ii30-40
pubmed: 22027917
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Jun;5(6):
pubmed: 32565428
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jun 08;12:289
pubmed: 22521207
Glob Public Health. 2021 Jul;16(7):1122-1130
pubmed: 32896213
Med Teach. 2019 Sep;41(9):1002-1006
pubmed: 30261797
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Sep;59(6):1251-61
pubmed: 15210096
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907
pubmed: 29937585
Lancet. 2022 Jun 4;399(10341):2129-2154
pubmed: 35617980
Health Policy. 2011 Mar;99(3):210-8
pubmed: 21056505
Reprod Health Matters. 2007 Nov;15(30):61-71
pubmed: 17938071
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15 Suppl 3:S6
pubmed: 26559564
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Jun;31(5):674-81
pubmed: 26856363