Elsevier

Health Policy

Volume 96, Issue 3, August 2010, Pages 200-209
Health Policy

Translating knowledge into policy and action to promote health equity: The Health Equity Fund policy process in Cambodia 2000–2008

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.02.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives

To understand how knowledge is used to inform policy on Health Equity Funds (HEFs) in Cambodia; and to draw lessons for translating knowledge into health policies that promote equity.

Methods

We used a knowledge translation framework to analyse the HEF policy process between 2000 and 2008. The analysis was based on data from document analysis, key informant interviews and authors’ observations.

Results

The HEF policy-making process in Cambodia was both innovative and incremental. Insights from pilot projects were gradually translated into national health policy. The uptake of HEF in health policy was determined by three important factors: a policy context conducive to the creation, dissemination and adoption of lessons gained in HEF pilots; the credibility and timeliness of HEF knowledge generated from pilot projects; and strong commitment, relationships and networks among actors.

Conclusions

Knowledge locally generated through pilot projects is crucial for innovative health policy. It can help adapt blueprints and best practices to a local context and creates ownership. While international organisations and donors can take a leading role in innovative interventions in low-income countries, the involvement of government policy makers is necessary for their scaling-up.

Introduction

Equity has been an overarching goal of public health policy in many countries for several decades. However, progress towards this goal has been disappointing. Poor-rich disparities in health financing, in access to health care and in health outcomes persist in many countries and even widen in some countries [1]. To address health inequities an equity-oriented approach to health and health sector policy is needed. A concerted effort must be made to ensure that health systems reach the poor more effectively [2]. Successful interventions aiming to reach the poor with health services exist in some countries [3]. However, replication of these interventions in developing countries where resources are scarce and health systems perform poorly is a big challenge and often requires context-specific experimentation through pilots [4].

The implementation of equitable health care financing mechanisms which could increase access for the poor and reduce poverty is critical to promoting health equity [5]. Yet, reliable knowledge on efficient and equitable health financing in different settings is sparse [6]. Moreover, the available knowledge is often not translated into policy. Closing the knowledge-policy gap is crucial to ensure health system strengthening and the achievement of health equity goals [7], [8], [9]. It requires a better understanding of interfaces between research and policy, in particular the factors affecting the uptake of research findings by policy. Despite a growing literature on policy analysis, knowledge in this field remains rather weak in developing countries [10], [11].

In Cambodia, despite considerable progress in the health sector, access to essential health services remains a problem, especially for the poor. To tackle this problem, multiple health financing innovations have been tested in recent years. Health Equity Fund (HEF) is one of these innovations aimed at promoting equity and reducing poverty through enhancing access to health services for the poor [12]. HEF pilots proved relatively successful and showed potential for improving equity and reducing poverty [13], [14], [15]. Supported by knowledge generated from the pilot schemes, HEFs went on to become part of national health policy. We analyse the HEF policy process to illustrate how knowledge was used to inform national health policy and draw lessons for translating knowledge into policies that promote equity (Box 1).

Section snippets

Materials and methods

This study is a retrospective analysis of the HEF policy process in Cambodia between 2000 and 2008, and was conducted under the guidance of a review team with members from the Cambodian Ministry of Health (MOH), the National Institute of Public Health and WHO's office in Phnom Penh. Document analysis and interviews are the most commonly used methods for policy analysis. They seem appropriate for retrospective analysis of a national and sub-national policy related to specific issues [21] and

Cambodian health policy and health sector reforms

As stated in policy documents that are reflected in article 72 of the National Constitution, health sector reforms in Cambodia are aimed at promoting equity and reducing poverty through enhancing access to and utilisation of quality services, especially for the poor, and protecting them from the impoverishing effects of ill-health. To reach these aims, the Cambodia health system has undergone a long series of reforms, including health financing reforms. Over the last decade, along with

Discussion

Pilot or experimental projects increase the likelihood of successful scaling-up by generating knowledge on how an innovation can be best implemented in a particular context, identifying potential problems and preventing unintended consequences of the introduction of an innovation prior to scaling-up [48]. While an increasing number of documented pilots is successfully scaled up, many successful small-scale pilots are ignored by policy makers or not scaled up to benefit larger populations

Conclusions

This paper illustrates how HEF pilots in Cambodia were successfully integrated in health policy and gradually scaled up nationwide. The study offers an example of how knowledge can be successfully translated into policy to promote health equity in low-income countries. Our findings suggest three important factors that can enhance the likelihood of uptake of a pilot project in health policy and its nationwide scaling-up. These include a policy context conducive to the creation, dissemination and

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Lo Veasna Kiry from the Ministry of Health, Dr. Saphorn Vonthanak from the National Institute of Public Health and Dr. Benjamin Lane from WHO for their contribution to the study. We are grateful to all the key informants for dedicating their valuable time for the interviews and to Dr. Steve Fabricant, Ms. Anjana Bhushan, Dr. Reijo Salmela, Kristof Decoster and Bart Jacobs for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. This study was funded by the WHO and one co-author

References (53)

  • World report on knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems

    (2004)
  • A. Haines et al.

    Bridging the implementation gap between knowledge and action for health

    Bulletin of the World Health Organization

    (2004)
  • V. Thamlikitkul

    Bridging the gap between knowledge and action for health: case studies

    Bulletin of the World Health Organization

    (2006)
  • L. Gilson et al.

    The terrain of health policy analysis in low and middle income countries: a review of published literature 1994–2007

    Health Policy and Planning

    (2008)
  • A.A. Hyder et al.

    Exploring health systems research and its influence on policy processes in low income countries

    BMC Public Health

    (2007)
  • M. Bigdeli et al.

    Barriers to access and the purchasing function of health equity funds: lessons from Cambodia

    Bulletin of the World Health Organization

    (2009)
  • W. Hardeman et al.

    Access to health care for all? User fees plus a Health Equity Fund in Sotnikum, Cambodia

    Health Policy and Planning

    (2004)
  • B. Jacobs et al.

    Improving access for the poorest to public sector health services: insights from Kirivong Operational Health District in Cambodia

    Health Policy and Planning

    (2006)
  • M. Noirhomme et al.

    Improving access to hospital care for the poor: comparative analysis of four health equity funds in Cambodia

    Health Policy and Planning

    (2007)
  • Strategic framework for equity funds: promoting access to priority health services among the poor

    (2003)
  • Evidence Policy for the WHO Regional Office for Europe

    (2004)
  • R. Landry et al.

    The knowledge-value chain: a conceptual framework for knowledge translation in health

    Bulletin of the World Health Organization

    (2006)
  • S. Bowen et al.

    Pathways to “evidence-informed” policy and practice: a framework for action

    PLoS Medicine

    (2005)
  • K. Buse et al.

    Making health policy

    (2005)
  • S.R. Hanney et al.

    The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment

    Health Research Policy and Systems

    (2003)
  • S. Innvaer et al.

    Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review

    Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

    (2002)
  • Cited by (28)

    • Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: A comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool

      2019, Health Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Third, by being engaged, stakeholders gain a better understanding of the prospective study results. This would inform the stakeholders of the study taking place, but also encourages them to think about potential use of the results in practice [12,13]. Finally, engagement can establish a trust-relationship between researchers and potential users.

    • Health financing in fragile and post-conflict states: What do we know and what are the gaps?

      2012, Social Science and Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      The Ministry of Health's Forum on Health Equity Funds reached a consensus on the positive impact of HEFs in terms of access to public health services for the poor, but concluded that the knowledge on mitigating the impoverishing effect of illness on the poor was ambiguous. Furthermore, key policy aspects of HEF remained partly unresolved, like the beneficiary identification methods, organisation and management model, benefit package, reliable funding source, and monitoring and evaluation (Por, Bigdeli, Meessen, & Van Damme, 2010). Despite the widespread HEFs in Cambodia, considerable financial barriers remain (Grundy, Khut, Oum, Annear, & Ky, 2009).

    • Targeting the worst-off for free health care: A process evaluation in Burkina Faso

      2011, Evaluation and Program Planning
      Citation Excerpt :

      Still, there is not yet sufficient evidence of the effectiveness of the community-based process, and this process also has certain limitations. The national policy context in Burkina Faso, characterized by a lack of political will around this issue, is also very different from that of Cambodia, for instance, where strong policy leadership was one of the factors in the successful expansion of health equity funds (Ir, Bigdeli, Meessen, & Van Damme, 2010). All of this confirms that there is no perfect solution (Coady et al., 2004).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text