Lancet
-
How do we explain the paradox that Bangladesh has made remarkable progress in health and human development, yet its achievements have taken place within a health system that is frequently characterised as weak, in terms of inadequate physical and human infrastructure and logistics, and low performing? We argue that the development of a highly pluralistic health system environment, defined by the participation of a multiplicity of different stakeholders and agents and by ad hoc, diffused forms of management has contributed to these outcomes by creating conditions for rapid change. We use a combination of data from official sources, research studies, case studies of specific innovations, and in-depth knowledge from our own long-term engagement with health sector issues in Bangladesh to lay out a conceptual framework for understanding pluralism and its outcomes. Although we argue that pluralism has had positive effects in terms of stimulating change and innovation, we also note its association with poor health systems governance and regulation, resulting in endemic problems such as overuse and misuse of drugs. ⋯ We identify four key areas where this management is needed: participatory governance, accountability and regulation, information systems, and capacity development. This approach challenges some mainstream frameworks for managing health systems, such as the building blocks approach of the WHO Health Systems Framework. However, as pluralism increasingly defines the nature and the challenge of 21st century health systems, the experience of Bangladesh is relevant to many countries across the world.
-
Bangladesh, the eighth most populous country in the world with about 153 million people, has recently been applauded as an exceptional health performer. In the first paper in this Series, we present evidence to show that Bangladesh has achieved substantial health advances, but the country's success cannot be captured simplistically because health in Bangladesh has the paradox of steep and sustained reductions in birth rate and mortality alongside continued burdens of morbidity. Exceptional performance might be attributed to a pluralistic health system that has many stakeholders pursuing women-centred, gender-equity-oriented, highly focused health programmes in family planning, immunisation, oral rehydration therapy, maternal and child health, tuberculosis, vitamin A supplementation, and other activities, through the work of widely deployed community health workers reaching all households. ⋯ However, these remarkable achievements in equity and coverage are counterbalanced by the persistence of child and maternal malnutrition and the low use of maternity-related services. The Bangladesh paradox shows the net outcome of successful direct health action in both positive and negative social determinants of health--ie, positives such as women's empowerment, widespread education, and mitigation of the effect of natural disasters; and negatives such as low gross domestic product, pervasive poverty, and the persistence of income inequality. Bangladesh offers lessons such as how gender equity can improve health outcomes, how health innovations can be scaled up, and how direct health interventions can partly overcome socioeconomic constraints.