Understanding the structure of a country’s health service providers for defence health engagement

There are a variety of structural and systems frameworks for describing the building blocks of country’s public health and health systems. In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework for a holistic view of a country’s health service providers in order to inform the plan for Defence Health Engagement activities with partner countries. This includes all potential government ministries involved in healthcare provision, the independent, private sector and the non-government organisation/charity sector. The framework provides a visualisation to support the analysis of a country’s health services providers. We propose that recognising and analysing the different contributions of all these national health providers is essential for understanding the wider political economy of a nation’s health systems. This can inform a plan of Defence Health Engagement for capacity building in crisis response, development and health systems strengthening.

Download Full-text

Issues, Claims and Concerns of Different Stakeholders of Healthcare Systems

Encyclopedia of Healthcare Information Systems ◽

10.4018/978-1-59904-889-5.ch100 ◽

2008 ◽

pp. 792-802

Author(s):

Herwig Ostermann ◽

Bettina Staudinger ◽

Magdalena Thöni ◽

Roland Staudinger

Keyword(s):

Health Service ◽

Health Systems ◽

Service Providers ◽

Well Being ◽

Healthcare Systems ◽

Complex Structures ◽

General Terms ◽

Health Service Providers ◽

Economic Well Being

Adopting a holistic sociotechnical perspective, healthcare systems do not merely exhibit complex structures and functionalities but are also affected by the differing expectations, claims, and concerns of the systems’ stakeholders (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Haux, Winter, & Ammenwerth, 2004). Furthermore, the issues addressed at healthcare systems are not limited to the concerns and requirements of health service providers, whose primary and most fundamental concerns in general terms represent the assurance of their own economic well-being and ability to proactively operate as well as the development of sustainable strategies in order to realize their own interests whatever they may be (Carsten, Hankeln, & Lohmann, 2004; Kappler, 1994). Furthermore, the objectives of other health systems stakeholders such as hospital operators and financiers as well as (health) politicians, which may well be in contradiction to the objectives of mere health service providers, have to be incorporated when systematically analyzing healthcare systems (Horev & Babad, 2005; Peltier, Kleimenhagen, & Neidu, 1996; Staudinger, 2004a ).

Download Full-text

Assessment of cervical cancer services and cervical cancer related knowledge of health service providers in public health facilities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

BMC Research Notes ◽

10.1186/s13104-019-4701-6 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Firdawek Getahun ◽

Adamu Addissie ◽

Shiferaw Negash ◽

Gebrekiros Gebremichael

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Cervical Cancer ◽

Health Service ◽

Service Providers ◽

Addis Ababa ◽

Health Facilities ◽

Health Providers ◽

Public Health Facilities ◽

Health Service Providers ◽

Cancer Services

Abstract Objective To assess cervical cancer services and knowledge of health service providers in public health facilities. Result Two of the three hospitals had cervical cancer screening services. One-third of the hospital had cervical cancer diagnosis service punch biopsy and cervical cancer treatment. Majority, 289 (93.5%) of study participants said cervical cancer was a preventable disease. Having multiple sexual partners 257 (83.2%) and post coital bleeding 251 (81.2%), were the most mentioned risk factor and clinical manifestation of cervical cancer respectively. Majority of the participants were aware of the correct time to start screening 291 (70.5%), and only 95 (25.9%) knew the screening intervals. Overall, 165 (53.4%) of health providers scored below the mean knowledge level score. Females had better knowledge about cervical cancer than males (X2 = 8.4, P = 0.003).

Download Full-text