Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2017 | Reseach | Sonderheft 2/2017 Open Access

Health Research Policy and Systems 2/2017

Strengthening scaling up through learning from implementation: comparing experiences from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Uganda

Zeitschrift:
Health Research Policy and Systems > Sonderheft 2/2017
Autoren:
Sara Bennett, Shehrin Shaila Mahmood, Anbrasi Edward, Moses Tetui, Elizabeth Ekirapa-Kiracho
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​s12961-017-0270-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Background

Many effective innovations and interventions are never effectively scaled up. Implementation research (IR) has the promise of supporting scale-up through enabling rapid learning about the intervention and its fit with the context in which it is implemented. We integrate conceptual frameworks addressing different dimensions of scaling up (specifically, the attributes of the service or innovation being scaled, the actors involved, the context, and the scale-up strategy) and questions commonly addressed by IR (concerning acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, feasibility, fidelity to original design, implementation costs, coverage and sustainability) to explore how IR can support scale-up.

Methods

We draw upon three IR studies conducted by Future Health Systems (FHS) in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Uganda. We reviewed project documents from the period 2011–2016 to identify information related to the dimensions of scaling up. Further, for each country, we developed rich descriptions of how the research teams approached scaling up, and how IR contributed to scale-up. The rich descriptions were checked by FHS research teams. We identified common patterns and differences across the three cases.

Results

The three cases planned quite different innovations/interventions and had very different types of scale-up strategies. In all three cases, the research teams had extensive prior experience within the study communities, and little explicit attention was paid to contextual factors. All three cases involved complex interactions between the research teams and other stakeholders, among stakeholders, and between stakeholders and the intervention. The IR planned by the research teams focussed primarily on feasibility and effectiveness, but in practice, the research teams also had critical insights into other factors such as sustainability, acceptability, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness. Stakeholder analyses and other project management tools further complemented IR.

Conclusions

IR can provide significant insights into how best to scale-up a particular intervention. To take advantage of insights from IR, scale-up strategies require flexibility and IR must also be sufficiently flexible to respond to new emerging questions. While commonly used conceptual frameworks for scale-up clearly delineate actors, such as implementers, target communities and the support team, in our experience, IR blurred the links between these groups.
Zusatzmaterial
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 2/2017

Health Research Policy and Systems 2/2017 Zur Ausgabe