背景:本研究将卫生发展援助(DAH)退出后的可持续性视为捐助者和接受者之间的共同责任,并将DAH支持的干预措施转变为国内卫生政策作为实现这种可持续性的途径。它旨在发现和了解DAH中捐助者-接受者动态的新出现方面,以及它们如何为制定国内卫生政策和DAH后的可持续性做出贡献。
方法:我们对两种DAH支持的干预措施进行了案例研究:世界银行和英国支持的基本卫生服务项目的医疗财政援助(1998-2007年)和民间社会参与全球基金支持的中国艾滋病毒/艾滋病滚动延续渠道(2010-2013年)。从2021年12月到2022年12月,我们分析了129份文件,采访了46名关键线人。我们的数据收集和编码以基于Walt和Gilson的卫生政策分析模型和世界卫生组织的卫生系统构建模块的概念框架为指导。我们使用过程跟踪进行分析。
结果:根据收集的数据,我们的案例研究确定了三个应急事件,捐赠者-接受者动态的相互关联的方面:不同的偏好和妥协,伙伴关系对话,以及对不断变化的环境的响应。在医疗经济援助的情况下,这种动态的特点是长期致力于满足当地需求,现场相互学习和理解,以及当地的专业知识培养和知识生成,能够对不断变化的环境做出积极的反应。相比之下,艾滋病毒/艾滋病民间社会参与的动态边缘化了真正的民间社会参与,缺乏足够的对话,并表现出对上下文的被动反应。这些差异导致案例之间在跨国政策传播和DAH支持的干预措施的可持续性方面产生了不同的结果。
结论:鉴于在两种情况下观察到的潜在替代因素的相似性,我们强调捐助者-接受者动态在通过DAH进行跨国政策扩散中的重要性。该研究表明,实现DAH后的可持续性需要在捐助者优先事项和接受者所有权之间取得平衡,以满足当地需求,为相互理解和学习进行伙伴关系对话,和合作的国际国内专家伙伴关系,以确定和应对背景因素和障碍。
This study views sustainability after the exit of development assistance for health (DAH) as a shared responsibility between donors and recipients and sees transitioning DAH-supported interventions into domestic health policy as a pathway to this sustainability. It aims to uncover and understand the reemergent aspects of the donor-recipient dynamic in DAH and how they contribute to formulating domestic health policy and post-DAH sustainability.
We conducted a
case study on two DAH-supported interventions: medical financial assistance in the Basic Health Services Project supported by the World Bank and UK (1998-2007) and civil society engagement in the HIV/AIDS Rolling Continuation Channel supported by the Global Fund (2010-2013) in China. From December 2021 to December 2022, we analyzed 129 documents and interviewed 46 key informants. Our data collection and coding were guided by a conceptual framework based on Walt and Gilson\'s health policy analysis model and the World Health Organization\'s health system building blocks. We used process tracing for analysis.
According to the collected data, our
case study identified three reemergent, interrelated aspects of donor-recipient dynamics: different preferences and compromise, partnership dialogues, and responsiveness to the changing context. In the
case of medical financial assistance, the dynamic was characterized by long-term commitment to addressing local needs, on-site mutual learning and understanding, and local expertise cultivation and knowledge generation, enabling proactive responses to the changing context. In contrast, the dynamic in the
case of HIV/AIDS civil society engagement marginalized genuine civil society engagement, lacked sufficient dialogue, and exhibited a passive response to the context. These differences led to varying outcomes in transnational policy diffusion and sustainability of DAH-supported interventions between the cases.
Given the similarities in potential alternative factors observed in the two cases, we emphasize the significance of the donor-recipient dynamic in transnational policy diffusion through DAH. The study implies that achieving post-DAH sustainability requires a balance between donor priorities and recipient ownership to address local needs, partnership dialogues for mutual understanding and learning, and collaborative international-domestic expert partnerships to identify and respond to contextual enablers and barriers.