Strengthening health service delivery and governance through institutionalizing ‘Urban Health Atlas’ - a geo-referenced Information Communication and Technology tool: lessons learned from an implementation research in three cities in Bangladesh

Study design and participants

This implementation research [IR] was conducted between 2016 and 2019 and employs a mixed-methods approach [24]. Detailed methods have been reported elsewhere [25]. Briefly, the WHO PATH toolkit was used to guide the introduction and implementation of information and communications technology (ICT) in health information systems [26].

Study sites

Two city corporations (CCs) – Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) and Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC) – and two municipalities, Jashore and Dinajpur in northern and south divisions were purposively selected, both of which have geo-referenced health facility data collected by icddr,b.

Sample size

Through a stakeholder mapping exercise, national and local level urban health decision makers were engaged to help identify potential users for UHA, yielding a sample of 15-16 respondents for each of 4 study sites. The sampling strategy, type, and number of respondents in each site are published elsewhere [25].

Implementation process

The study implementation process began with stakeholder sensitization and partnership-building through two consultation workshops. These workshops served to generate suggestions on how to promote uptake, regular use, and update of UHA, create buy-in for the implementation research project, and promote stakeholder engagement in UHA advocacy. As a result of this process, an implementation partnership with the Management Information System (MIS) of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), MOHFW was formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between icddr,b and DGHS. Permission letters were also obtained from mayors of CCs and municipalities.

The UHA training intervention consisted of capacity building sessions for government and other urban health planners and managers on how to employ UHA as a planning tool to integrate and expand maternal, newborn, and reproductive health services with a focus on improving access for the urban poor. Trainees were selected in consultation with local government authorities. The total number of participants enrolled in capacity-building training by city is shared in Table 1. All institutional agreements and permissions were sought in advance from local government institutions and the health ministry.

Capacity building was divided into two phases: In the first phase, a two-day training was provided to participants that involved a series of hands-on exercises; and in the second phase, a refresher training was conducted three months post basic training among the same participants. A training manual was prepared to guide UHA capacity-building workshops including case studies, guidelines for group work and hands-on activities, pre-test/post-test questionnaires, etc. The training was organized with key actors in the urban healthcare system including health workers and managers working in local government, and NGOs. Training modalities were contextualized based on local needs in discussion with implementation partners, and facilitated by experts in urban health, and health management and geographic information systems (HMIS and GIS). Training sessions provided an introduction to current urban health challenges in each city, followed by an overview and demonstration of the UHA and its functions. Hands-on training, group work, and case studies were undertaken to familiarize users with UHA and to get their feedback on how it could be improved to better meet their needs, and suggestions on how health services information could be updated.

Data collection

Methods used for data collection included desk review and a series of in-depth interviews conducted by an experienced group of researchers with expertise in qualitative and mixed-methods approaches. The desk review involved the critical assessment of existing policies related to urban health and the use of ICTs in for primary care and MNCH decision making, including the: i) 2011 National Health Policy; ii) The 2009 National ICT policy; iii) 2014 National Urban Health Strategy; iv) Program Implementation Plan of MOHFW. Interviews were conducted with stakeholders and trainees prior to, during and post the UHA intervention employing the steps for ICT institutionalization outlined in the WHO PATH toolkit. Key informant interviews (KIIs) with urban health system actors and policymakers along with desk reviews were undertaken to document how MNCH planning and referral decisions are currently made. In-depth interviews (IDIs) with potential UHA users were conducted to explore user preferences and information needs to refine the UHA tool in advance of the training. A subsequent set of IDIs with UHA users sought to understand their experiences and to document challenges and successes of using UHA for MNCH service decision-making during training and one- & three-months post-training. Alongside interviews, process documentation of the dynamics of UHA uptake was undertaken, which considered contextual factors and their influence. All interviews were recorded with participant consent, but with simultaneous note-taking in case of equipment failure.

Data analysis

Data transcription occurred immediately following each interview, followed by translation into English. Data familiarization involved reading the transcripts repeatedly to appreciate data content, structure, and emerging themes. Initial analyses involved developing a process flowchart for current decision-making practices using the KII results and organizational process reviews. In addition, a list of user needs was extracted that helped identify the most important and feasible functions to be added to UHA. Analysis of UHA user interviews involved applying “a priori” codes derived from the WHO PATH toolkit [WHO/PATH], and exploring patterns and themes using the Framework Method [27].

Transcripts were coded using ATLAS-ti (version-7.5.7). A team approach to analysis was employed to minimize individual biases and periodic inter-coder reliability checks were organized. Group discussions of emerging themes and patterns in the data were oriented around data displays that allowed for more systematic pattern-testing and cross-checking across respondents.

Ethics

The study protocol was approved the Research Review Committee (RRC) and the Ethical Review Committee (ERC) of icddr,b, both of which provided a thorough and critical review of its technical and ethical aspects. Participants were asked for written consent before interviewing and were kept anonymous and unidentifiable. All data were kept in locked storage, or controlled access folders, allowing only investigators of the study and members of the ERC of icddr,b to access information, if needed.

Factors influencing ‘uptake’ of UHA

As regards uptake of the tool, our findings indicated the importance of policy level support, and stakeholder involvement as crucial facilitators along with efforts to understand and respond to user needs and responsibilities. A major challenge was the degree of individual, organizational and system readiness for a digital tool and its application in the absence of formal systems of urban health service planning.

Factors influencing ‘use’ of UHA

We investigated the use of UHA under three major sub-themes: Understandability, Usability, and Utility. Factors facilitating or challenging the understandability of UHA among users in the study were training, compatibility with work, and previous exposure to ICT tools or e-health technologies. Participation in organized hands-on training was the most cited reason for improved understanding of the tool. For users who had previous exposure to ICT and had worked with similar ICT tools, the UHA was easily understood and its design and features were well-recognized. The categorization of data in UHA by type of facility, defined area location, price list and opening hours helped to make the UHA interesting to participants and facilitated understandability of its various functions.

Efforts to increase usability through a Bangla translated version of the tool, new filter options, and training around these features were especially appreciated. As one NGO manager said:

“Through the training on UHA, we got to know where we need to click to find the kind of data we need and made it useful for us…the whole urban health scene of Dinajpur (is) in one place - hat my organization is doing, what the government is doing, what other health facilities are doing…” (IDI 5, NGO Personnel, Dinajpur)

The utility of the tool was mainly perceived in the area of planning, decision making and oversight by managers, especially in terms of redistributing MNCH facilities more equitably by geography and population needs. According to the district health manager of one municipality:

“The information provided in UHA: the location, the ward boundaries, and the corresponding number of facilities will help urban health planning purposes. For example, now I can see that certain wards contain many facilities, whereas other wards have few. So I can redistribute them, and plan and implement in a more (evidence-based) way. If implementation occurs, I can use these maps to distribute and supervise my workers and decide where I need more support. It will also help me in evaluation to understand what things were supposed to be done what needs to be improved.” (IDI 1, Government Official, Dinajpur)

Study participants opined that one of the strengths of UHA is its complete database of healthcare facilities, including their geo-location and related service details. As such, participants thought it was a unique resource with many possible applications with respect to MNCH planning in complex urban settings. In fact, these applications were used by health planners to improve the distribution of MNCH health services in Dinajpur [30] by identifying and reducing duplication and service gaps among satellite centers and Extended Program on Immunnization (EPI) sites and ensuring that designated service providers were accountable for delivering services in designated wards. The tool was also used for service re-allocation and emergency health service management in Dinajpur [30]. Using ward-wise population data available in UHA, decisions were made regarding emergency needs for Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS), zinc tablets and other drugs:

“During the last flood in Dinajpur, I estimated the ward-wise population from this tool. This helped me to estimate how many zinc tablets and other emergency drugs needed to be distributed (per ward). When I will present the data of my city during this year’s flood, I can demonstrate it using UHA.” (IDI-6, Dinajpur)

As patients and service seekers themselves, study participants also recognized the tool’s worth from the demand side, and its potential in helping access appropriate and proximate care while minimizing the involvement of middlemen.

Factors facilitating regular ‘update’ of UHA

Lack of an agreed mechanism to update and link urban facility data to routine HMIS data, was perceived as an impediment to regular use of UHA for planning purposes. Weak administrative and planning capacity at local level and a limited urban mandate at the national level accounted for this absence. As one study participant explained:

“It is a useful tool but there is a lot of scope for improvement. The most important one is regular updating of facility and service data. There should be proper mechanisms and guidelines on how, when, and who should update it.” (IDI 3, government official, Jashore)

High turnover of those in key decision-making positions was perceived to further hinder or delay UHA update or institutionalization. Shifting priorities, lack of interest and commitment, and differences of opinion on how and who should take charge of update, were widespread. For example, in Dinajpur, stakeholders stated that the Civil Surgeon’s office should be responsible for updating UHA information since all health-related reports are the responsibility of the Civil Surgeon’s Office. On the other hand, in Jashore, stakeholders opined that municipal authorities should lead the process of regular update given that urban primary health care falls under the jurisdiction of urban local body of MOLGRD&C. In both cases, however, there was a common understanding that a separate unit was needed to ensure accountability and coordination among those collecting, providing and using the information available in UHA. Regular capacity building would also be needed.

The conceptual framework was revised considering the findings of the study (Fig 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 2. Revised conceptual framework for institutionalization of Urban Health Atlas

Limitations

The study took place in two city corporations and two municipalities in Bangladesh where UHA had been implemented. Given the extraordinary diversity of urban settings, generalizability may be limited. It is possible that in cities with different geo-political administration arrangements, such as federal and state level divisions in governance, different challenges may be faced.

Notwithstanding these differences, insights arising from this study enrich the literature on conditions, features and processes of successful ICT institutionalization.