↓ Skip to main content

How does decentralisation affect health sector planning and financial management? a case study of early effects of devolution in Kilifi County, Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
313 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How does decentralisation affect health sector planning and financial management? a case study of early effects of devolution in Kilifi County, Kenya
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0649-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Tsofa, Sassy Molyneux, Lucy Gilson, Catherine Goodman

Abstract

A common challenge for health sector planning and budgeting has been the misalignment between policies, technical planning and budgetary allocation; and inadequate community involvement in priority setting. Health system decentralisation has often been promoted to address health sector planning and budgeting challenges through promoting community participation, accountability, and technical efficiency in resource management. In 2010, Kenya passed a new constitution that introduced 47 semi-autonomous devolved county governments, and a substantial transfer of responsibility for healthcare from the central government to these counties. This study analysed the effects of this major political decentralization on health sector planning, budgeting and overall financial management at county level. We used a qualitative, case study design focusing on Kilifi County, and were guided by a conceptual framework which drew on decentralisation and policy analysis theories. Qualitative data were collected through document reviews, key informant interviews, and participant and non-participant observations conducted over an eighteen months' period. We found that the implementation of devolution created an opportunity for local level prioritisation and community involvement in health sector planning and budgeting hence increasing opportunities for equity in local level resource allocation. However, this opportunity was not harnessed due to accelerated transfer of functions to counties before county level capacity had been established to undertake the decentralised functions. We also observed some indication of re-centralisation of financial management from health facility to county level. We conclude by arguing that, to enhance the benefits of decentralised health systems, resource allocation, priority setting and financial management functions between central and decentralised units are guided by considerations around decision space, organisational structure and capacity, and accountability. In acknowledging the political nature of decentralisation polices, we recommend that health sector policy actors develop a broad understanding of the countries' political context when designing and implementing technical strategies for health sector decentralisation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 313 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 313 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 70 22%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 8%
Student > Bachelor 20 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 6%
Other 45 14%
Unknown 101 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 15%
Social Sciences 43 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 3%
Other 49 16%
Unknown 111 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,753,176
of 23,371,053 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#661
of 1,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,233
of 316,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#26
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,371,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.