Forty to 70 % of medical devices and equipment in low- and middle-income countries are broken, unused or unfit for purpose; this impairs service delivery to patients and results in lost resources. Undiscerning procurement processes are at the heart of this issue. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to August 2013 with no time or language restrictions to identify what product selection or prioritization methods are recommended or used for medical device and equipment procurement planning within low- and middle-income countries. We explore the factors/evidence-base proposed for consideration within such methods and identify prioritization criteria. We included 217 documents (corresponding to 250 texts) in the narrative synthesis. Of these 111 featured in the meta-summary. We identify experience and needs-based methods used to reach procurement decisions. Equipment costs (including maintenance) and health needs are the dominant issues considered. Extracted data suggest that procurement officials should prioritize devices with low- and middle-income country appropriate technical specifications – i.e. devices and equipment that can be used given available human resources, infrastructure and maintenance capacity. Suboptimal device use is directly linked to incomplete costing and inadequate consideration of maintenance services and user training during procurement planning. Accurate estimation of life-cycle costing and careful consideration of device servicing are of crucial importance.

Background There is growing interest in paying for performance (P4P) as a means to align the incentives of healthcare providers with public health goals. Rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies in improving health care and health in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) is lacking; this is an update of the 2012 review on this topic. Objectives To assess the effects of paying for performance on the provision of health care and health outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 10 other databases between April and June 2018. We also searched two trial registries, websites, online resources of international agencies, organizations and universities, and contacted experts in the field. Studies identified from rerunning searches in 2020 are under 'Studies awaiting classification.' Selection criteria We included randomized or non‐randomized trials, controlled before‐after studies, or interrupted time series studies conducted in LMICs (as defined by the World Bank in 2018). P4P refers to the transfer of money or material goods conditional on taking a measurable action or achieving a predetermined performance target. To be included, a study had to report at least one of the following outcomes: patient health outcomes, changes in targeted measures of provider performance (such as the delivery of healthcare services), unintended effects, or changes in resource use. Data collection and analysis We extracted data as per original review protocol and narratively synthesised findings. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Given diversity and variability in intervention types, patient populations, analyses and outcome reporting, we deemed meta‐analysis inappropriate. We noted the range of effects associated with P4P against each outcome of interest. Based on intervention descriptions provided in documents, we classified design schemes and explored variation in effect by scheme design. Main results We included 59 studies: controlled before‐after studies (19), non‐randomized (16) or cluster randomized trials (14); and interrupted time‐series studies (9). One study included both an interrupted time series and a controlled before‐after study. Studies focused on a wide range of P4P interventions, including target payments and payment for outputs as modified by quality (or quality and equity assessments). Only one study assessed results‐based aid. Many schemes were funded by national governments (23 studies) with the World Bank funding most externally funded schemes (11 studies). Targeted services varied; however, most interventions focused on reproductive, maternal and child health indicators. Participants were predominantly located in public or in a mix of public, non‐governmental and faith‐based facilities (54 studies). P4P was assessed predominantly at health facility level, though districts and other levels were also involved. Most studies assessed the effects of P4P against a status quo control (49 studies); however, some studies assessed effects against comparator interventions (predominantly enhanced financing intended to match P4P funds (17 studies)). Four studies reported intervention effects against both comparator and status quo. Controlled before‐after studies were at higher risk of bias than other study designs. However, some randomised trials were also downgraded due to risk of bias. The interrupted time‐series studies provided insufficient information on other concurrent changes in the study context. P4P compared to a status quo control For health services that are specifically targeted, P4P may slightly improve health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. P4P may also improve service quality overall (low certainty evidence); and probably increases the availability of health workers, medicines and well‐functioning infrastructure and equipment (moderate certainty evidence). P4P may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of services (low certainty evidence) and may have few or no distorting unintended effects on outcomes that were not targeted (low‐certainty evidence), but few studies assessed these. For secondary outcomes, P4P may make little or no difference to provider absenteeism, motivation or satisfaction (low certainty evidence); but may improve patient satisfaction and acceptability (low certainty evidence); and may positively affect facility managerial autonomy (low certainty evidence). P4P probably makes little to no difference to management quality or facility governance (low certainty evidence). Impacts on equity were mixed (low certainty evidence). For health services that are untargeted, P4P probably improves some health outcomes (moderate certainty evidence); may improve the delivery, use and quality of some health services but may make little or no difference to others (low certainty evidence); and may have few or no distorting unintended effects (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on the availability of medicines and other resources are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). P4P compared to other strategies For health outcomes and services that are specifically targeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. P4P may improve service quality (low certainty evidence); and may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of health services and on the availability of equipment and medicines (low certainty evidence). For health outcomes and services that are untargeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes and to the delivery and use of health services (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on service quality, resource availability and unintended effects are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). Findings of subgroup analyses Results‐based aid, and schemes using payment per output adjusted for service quality, appeared to yield the greatest positive effects on outcomes. However, only one study evaluated results‐based aid, so the effects may be spurious. Overall, schemes adjusting both for quality of service and rewarding equitable delivery of services appeared to perform best in relation to service utilization outcomes. Authors' conclusions The evidence base on the impacts of P4P schemes has grown considerably, with study quality gradually increasing. P4P schemes may have mixed effects on outcomes of interest, and there is high heterogeneity in the types of schemes implemented and evaluations conducted. P4P is not a uniform intervention, but rather a range of approaches. Its effects depend on the interaction of several variables, including the design of the intervention (e.g., who receives payments ), the amount of additional funding, ancillary components (such as technical support) and contextual factors (including organizational context).

Resilience is increasingly recognised as a key process mitigating the impact of shocks and stressors on functioning. The literature on individual and community resilience is being extended to address characteristics of resilient service delivery systems in contexts of adversity. The validity and utility of a capacity-oriented resilience framework (including absorption, adaptation and transformation) is examined with respect to the functioning of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) health systems in Lebanon and Jordan in the context of the Syrian crisis. We completed 62 semi-structured interviews (30 in Lebanon in November-December 2016, and 32 in Jordan in January 2017) with professionals at primary care, area, and country management levels. Participants reflected on changes in population health status and health service delivery during the Syrian crisis, notably with respect to the influx of refugees from Syria. Interviews were analysed through inductive thematic analysis and used to critically interrogate health systems resilience against a pro-capacities framework. We find that UNRWA systems in Lebanon and Jordan were broadly resilient, deploying diverse strategies to address health challenges and friction between host and refugee populations. Absorptive capacity was evidenced by successful accommodation of increased patient numbers across most service areas. Adaptive capacities were reflected in broadening of collaboration and reconfiguration of staff roles to enhance service delivery. Transformative capacities were demonstrated in the revision of the service packages provided. While manifest as technical capacities, these clearly drew upon solidarity and commitment linked to the political context of the Palestinian experience. The study adds to the limited literature on health system and organizational resilience and indicates that capacity-oriented framings of resilience are valuable in extracting generalizable lessons for health systems facing adversity. The proposed resilience framework promises to guide strategies for sustained care delivery in these contexts.

Health system resilience reflects the ability to continue service delivery in the face of extraordinary shocks. We examined the case of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and its delivery of services to Palestine refugees in Syria during the ongoing crisis to identify factors enabling system resilience. The study is a retrospective qualitative case study utilizing diverse methods. We conducted 35 semi-structured interviews with UNRWA clinical and administrative professionals engaged in health service delivery over the period of the Syria conflict. Through a group model building session with a sub-group of eight of these participants, we then elicited a causal loop diagram of health system functioning over the course of the war, identifying pathways of threat and mitigating resilience strategies. We triangulated analysis with data from UNRWA annual reports and routine health management information. The UNRWA health system generally sustained service provision despite individual, community and system challenges that arose during the conflict. We distinguish absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities of the system facilitating this resilience. Absorptive capacities enabled immediate crisis response, drawing on available human and organizational resources. Adaptive capacities sustained service delivery through revised logistical arrangements, enhanced collaborative mechanisms and organizational flexibility. Transformative capacity was evidenced by the creation of new services in response to changing community needs. Analysis suggests factors such as staff commitment, organizational flexibility and availability of collaboration mechanisms were important assets in maintaining service continuity and quality. This evidence regarding alternative strategies adopted to sustain service delivery in Syria is of clear relevance to other actors seeking organizational resilience in crisis contexts.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) disproportionately affect people living in fragile contexts marked by poor governance and health systems struggling to deliver quality services for the benefit of all. This combination can lead to the erosion of trust in the health system, affecting health-seeking behaviours and the ability of individuals to sustain their health. In this cross-country multiple-case study, we analyse the role of trust in health-seeking for NCD services in fragile contexts. Our analysis triangulates multiple data sources, including semi-structured interviews (n = 102) and Group Model Building workshops (n = 8) with individuals affected by NCDs and health providers delivering NCD services. Data were collected in Freetown and Makeni (Sierra Leone), Beirut and Beqaa (Lebanon), and Morazán, Chalatenango and Bajo Lempa (El Salvador) between April 2018 and April 2019. We present a conceptual model depicting key dynamics and feedback loops between contextual factors, institutional, interpersonal and social trust and health-seeking pathways. Our findings signal that firstly, the way health services are delivered and experienced shapes institutional trust in health systems, interpersonal trust in health providers and future health-seeking pathways. Secondly, historical narratives about public institutions and state authorities’ responses to contextual fragility drivers impact institutional trust and utilisation of services from public health institutions. Thirdly, social trust mediates health-seeking behaviour through social bonds and links between health systems and individuals affected by NCDs. Given the repeated and sustained utilisation of health services required with these chronic diseases, (re)building and maintaining trust in public health institutions and providers is a crucial task in fragile contexts. This requires interventions at community, district and national levels, with a key focus on promoting links and mutual accountability between health systems and communities affected by NCDs.

Advances in population health outcomes risk being slowed—and potentially reversed—by a range of threats increasingly presented as ‘fragility’. Widely used and critiqued within the development arena, the concept is increasingly used in the field of global health, where its relationship to population health, health service delivery, access and utilization is poorly specified. We present the first scoping review seeking to clarify the meaning, definitions and applications of the term in the global health literature. Adopting the theoretical framework of concept analysis, 10 bibliographic and grey literature sources, and five key journals, were searched to retrieve documents relating to fragility and health. Reviewers screened titles and abstracts and retained documents applying the term fragility in relation to health systems, services, health outcomes and population or community health. Data were extracted according to the protocol; all documents underwent bibliometric analysis. Narrative synthesis was then used to identify defining attributes of the concept in the field of global health. A total of 377 documents met inclusion criteria. There has been an exponential increase in applications of the concept in published literature over the last 10 years. Formal definitions of the term continue to be focused on the characteristics of ‘fragile and conflict-affected states’. However, synthesis indicates diverse use of the concept with respect to: level of application (e.g. from state to local community); emphasis on particular antecedent stressors (including factors beyond conflict and weak governance); and focus on health system or community resources (with an increasing tendency to focus on the interface between two). Amongst several themes identified, trust is noted as a key locus of fragility at this interface, with critical implications for health seeking, service utilization and health system and community resilience.