Effective referral systems from the community to the health care facility are essential to save lives and ensure quality and a continuum of care. The effectiveness of referral systems in Mozambique depends on multiple factors that involve three main stakeholders: clients/community members; community health workers (CHWs); and facility-based health care workers. Each stakeholder is dependent on the other and could form either a barrier or a facilitator of referral within the complex health system of Mozambique. This qualitative study, aiming to explore barriers and enablers of referral within the lens of complex adaptive health systems, employed 22 in-depth interviews with CHWs, their supervisors and community leaders and 8 focus group discussion with 63 community members. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and read for identification of themes and sub-themes related to barriers and enablers of client referrals. Data analysis was supported by the use of NVivo (v10). Results were summarized in narratives, reviewed, discussed and adjusted. All stakeholders acknowledged the centrality of the referral system in a continuum of quality care. CHWs and community members identified similar enablers and barriers to uptake of referral. A major common facilitator was the existence of referral slips to expedite treatment upon reaching the health facility. A common barrier was the failure for referred clients to receive preferential treatment at the facility, despite the presence of a referral slip. Long distances and opportunity and transport costs were presented as barriers to accessibility and affordability of referral services at the health facility level. Supervisors identified barriers related to use of referral data, rather than uptake of referral. Supervisors and CHWs perceived the lack of feedback as a barrier to a functional referral system. The barriers and enablers of referral systems shape both healthcare system functionality and community perceptions of care. Addressing common barriers to and strengthening the efficiency of referral systems have the potential to improve health at community level. Improved communication and feedback between involved stakeholders – especially strengthening the intermediate role of CHWs – and active community engagement will be key to stimulate better use of referral services and healthcare facilities.

Introduction Devolution reforms in Indonesia and Kenya have brought extensive changes to governance structures and mechanisms for financing and delivering healthcare. Community health approaches can contribute towards attaining many of devolution’s objectives, including community participation, responsiveness, accountability and improved equity. We set out to examine governance in two countries at different stages in the devolution journey: Indonesia at 15 years postdevolution and Kenya at 3 years. Methods We collected qualitative data across multiple levels of the health system in one district in Indonesia and ten counties in Kenya, through 80 interviews and six focus group discussions (FGD) in Indonesia and 269 interviews and 14 FGDs in Kenya. Qualitative data were digitally recorded, transcribed and coded before thematic framework analysis. Common themes between contexts were identified inductively and deductively, and similarities and differences critically analysed during an inter-country analysis workshop. Results Following devolution both Indonesia and Kenya experienced similar challenges ensuring good governance for health. Devolution reforms transformed power relationships, increasing responsibilities at subnational levels and introducing opportunities for citizen participation. In both contexts, the impact of these mechanisms has been undermined by insufficiently clear guidance; failure to address pre-existing negative contextual norms and practices varied decision-maker values, limited priority-setting capacity and limited genuine community accountability. As a consequence, priorities in both contexts are too often placed on curative rather than preventive health services. Conclusion We recommend consideration of increased intersectoral actions that address social determinants of health, challenge negative norms and practices and place emphasis on community-based primary health services.

Devolution changes the locus of power within a country from central to sub-national levels. In 2013, Kenya devolved health and other services from central government to 47 new sub-national governments (known as counties). This transition seeks to strengthen democracy and accountability, increase community participation, improve efficiency and reduce inequities. With changing responsibilities and power following devolution reforms, comes the need for priority-setting at the new county level. Priority-setting arises as a consequence of the needs and demand for healthcare resources exceeding the resources available, resulting in the need for some means of choosing between competing demands. We sought to explore the impact of devolution on priority-setting for health equity and community health services. We conducted key informant and in-depth interviews with health policymakers, health providers and politicians from 10 counties (n = 269 individuals) and 14 focus group discussions with community members based in 2 counties (n = 146 individuals). Qualitative data were analysed using the framework approach. We found Kenya’s devolution reforms were driven by the need to demonstrate responsiveness to county contexts, with positive ramifications for health equity in previously neglected counties. The rapidity of the process, however, combined with limited technical capacity and guidance has meant that decision-making and prioritization have been captured and distorted for political and power interests. Less visible community health services that focus on health promotion, disease prevention and referral have been neglected within the prioritization process in favour of more tangible curative health services. The rapid transition in power carries a degree of risk of not meeting stated objectives. As Kenya moves forward, decision-makers need to address the community health gap and lay down institutional structures, processes and norms which promote health equity for all Kenyans.

Universal health coverage (UHC) is growing as a national political priority, within the context of recently devolved decision-making processes in Kenya. Increasingly voices within these discussions are highlighting the need for actions towards UHC to focus on quality of services, as well as improving coverage through expansion of national health insurance fund (NHIF) enrolment. Improving health equity is one of the most frequently described objectives for devolution of health services. Previous studies, however, highlight the complexity and unpredictability of devolution processes, potentially contributing to widening rather than reducing disparities. Our study applied Tanahashi’s equity model (according to availability, accessibility, acceptability, contact with and quality) to review perceived equity of health services by actors across the health system and at community level, following changes to the priority-setting process at sub-national levels post devolution in Kenya. We carried out a qualitative study between March 2015 and April 2016, involving 269 key informant and in-depth interviews from different levels of the health system in ten counties and 14 focus group discussions with community members in two of these counties. Qualitative data were analysed using the framework approach. Our findings reveal that devolution in Kenya has focused on improving the supply side of health services, by expanding the availability, geographic and financial accessibility of health services across many counties. However, there has been limited emphasis and investment in promoting the demand side, including restricted efforts to promote acceptability or use of services. Respondents perceived that the quality of health services has typically been neglected within priority-setting to date. If Kenya is to achieve universal health coverage for all citizens, then county governments must address all aspects of equity, including quality. Through application of the Tanahashi framework, we find that community health services can play a crucial role towards achieving health equity.

Practices of power lie at the heart of policy processes. In both devolution and priority-setting, actors seek to exert power through influence and control over material, human, intellectual and financial resources. Priority-setting arises as a consequence of the needs and demand exceeding the resources available, requiring some means of choosing between competing demands. This paper examines the use of power within priority-setting processes for healthcare resources at sub-national level, following devolution in Kenya. We interviewed 14 national level key informants and 255 purposively selected respondents from across the health system in ten counties. These qualitative data were supplemented by 14 focus group discussions (FGD) involving 146 community members in two counties. We conducted a power analysis using Gaventa’s power cube and Veneklasen’s expressions of power to interpret our findings. We found Kenya’s transition towards devolution is transforming the former centralised balance of power, leading to greater ability for influence at the county level, reduced power at national and sub-county (district) levels, and limited change at community level. Within these changing power structures, politicians are felt to play a greater role in priority-setting for health. The interfaces and tensions between politicians, health service providers and the community has at times been felt to undermine health related technical priorities. Underlying social structures and discriminatory practices generally continue unchanged, leading to the continued exclusion of the most vulnerable from priority-setting processes. Power analysis of priority-setting at county level after devolution in Kenya highlights the need for stronger institutional structures, processes and norms to reduce the power imbalances between decision-making actors and to enable community participation.

Power imbalances are a key driver of avoidable, unfair and unjust differences in health. Devolution shifts the balance of power in health systems. Intersectionality approaches can provide a ‘lens’ for analysing how power relations contribute to complex and multiple forms of health advantage and disadvantage. These approaches have not to date been widely used to analyse health systems reforms. While the stated objectives of devolution often include improved equity, efficiency and community participation, past evidence demonstrates that that there is a need to create space and capacity for people to transform existing power relations these within specific contexts. We carried out a qualitative study between March 2015 and April 2016, involving 269 key informant and in-depth interviews from across the health system in ten counties, 14 focus group discussions with community members in two of these counties and photovoice participatory research with nine young people. We adopted an intersectionality lens to reveal how power relations intersect to produce vulnerabilities for specific groups in specific contexts, and to identify examples of the tacit knowledge about these vulnerabilities held by priority-setting stakeholders, in the wake of the introduction of devolution reforms in Kenya. Our study identified a range of ways in which longstanding social forces and discriminations limit the power and agency individuals can exercise, but are mediated by their unique circumstances at a given point in their life. These are the social determinants of health, influencing an individual’s exposure to risk of ill health from their living environment, their work, or their social context, including social norms relating to their gender, age, geographical residence or socio-economic status. While a range of policy measures have been introduced to encourage participation by typically ‘unheard voices’, devolution processes have yet to adequately challenge the social norms, and intersecting power relations which contribute to discrimination and marginalisation. If key actors in devolved decision-making structures are to ensure progress towards universal health coverage, there is need for intersectoral policy action to address social determinants, promote equity and identify ways to challenge and shift power imbalances in priority-setting processes.