Responding to critical shortages of physicians, most sub-Saharan countries have scaled up training of nonphysician clinicians (NPCs), resulting in a gradual but decisive shift to NPCs as the cornerstone of healthcare delivery. This development should unfold in parallel with strategic rethinking about the role of physicians and with innovations in physician education and in-service training. In important ways, a growing number of NPCs only renders physicians more necessary – for example, as specialized healthcare providers and as leaders, managers, mentors, and public health administrators. Physicians in sub-Saharan Africa ought to be trained in all of these capacities. This evolution in the role of physicians may also help address known challenges to the successful integration of NPCs in the health system.

Background In early 2012, National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) members in Ashanti Region were allowed to choose their own primary healthcare providers. This paper investigates the factors that enrolees in the Ashanti Region considered in choosing preferred primary healthcare providers (PPPs) and direction of association of such factors with the choice of PPP. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, the study sampled 600 NHIS enrolees in Kumasi Metro area and Kwabre East district. The sampling methods were a combination of simple random and systematic sampling techniques at different stages. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse demographic information and the criteria for selecting PPP. Multinomial logistic regression technique was used to ascertain the direction of association of the factors and the choice of PPP using mission PPPs as the base outcome. Results Out of the 600 questionnaires administered, 496 were retained for further analysis. The results show that availability of essential drugs (53.63%) and doctors (39.92%), distance or proximity (49.60%), provider reputation (39.52%), waiting time (39.92), additional charges (37.10%), and recommendations (48.79%) were the main criteria adopted by enrolees in selecting PPPs. In the regression, income (-0.0027), availability of doctors (-1.82), additional charges (-2.14) and reputation (-2.09) were statistically significant at 1% in influencing the choice of government PPPs. On the part of private PPPs, availability of drugs (2.59), waiting time (1.45), residence (-2.62), gender (-2.89), and reputation (-2.69) were statistically significant at 1% level. Presence of additional charges (-1.29) was statistically significant at 5% level. Conclusion Enrolees select their PPPs based on such factors as availability of doctors and essential drugs, reputation, waiting time, income, and their residence. Based on these findings, there is the need for healthcare providers to improve on their quality levels by ensuring constant availability of essential drugs, doctors, and shorter waiting time. However, individual enrolees may value each criterion differently. Thus, not all enrolees may be motivated by same concerns. This requires providers to be circumspect regarding the factors that may attract enrolees. The National Health Insurance Authority (NHIA) should also ensure timely release of funds to help providers procure the necessary medical supplies to ensure quality service.

Background In early 2012, National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) members in Ashanti Region were allowed to choose their own primary healthcare providers. This paper investigates the factors that enrolees in the Ashanti Region considered in choosing preferred primary healthcare providers (PPPs) and direction of association of such factors with the choice of PPP. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, the study sampled 600 NHIS enrolees in Kumasi Metro area and Kwabre East district. The sampling methods were a combination of simple random and systematic sampling techniques at different stages. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse demographic information and the criteria for selecting PPP. Multinomial logistic regression technique was used to ascertain the direction of association of the factors and the choice of PPP using mission PPPs as the base outcome. Results Out of the 600 questionnaires administered, 496 were retained for further analysis. The results show that availability of essential drugs (53.63%) and doctors (39.92%), distance or proximity (49.60%), provider reputation (39.52%), waiting time (39.92), additional charges (37.10%), and recommendations (48.79%) were the main criteria adopted by enrolees in selecting PPPs. In the regression, income (-0.0027), availability of doctors (-1.82), additional charges (-2.14) and reputation (-2.09) were statistically significant at 1% in influencing the choice of government PPPs. On the part of private PPPs, availability of drugs (2.59), waiting time (1.45), residence (-2.62), gender (-2.89), and reputation (-2.69) were statistically significant at 1% level. Presence of additional charges (-1.29) was statistically significant at 5% level. Conclusion Enrolees select their PPPs based on such factors as availability of doctors and essential drugs, reputation, waiting time, income, and their residence. Based on these findings, there is the need for healthcare providers to improve on their quality levels by ensuring constant availability of essential drugs, doctors, and shorter waiting time. However, individual enrolees may value each criterion differently. Thus, not all enrolees may be motivated by same concerns. This requires providers to be circumspect regarding the factors that may attract enrolees. The National Health Insurance Authority (NHIA) should also ensure timely release of funds to help providers procure the necessary medical supplies to ensure quality service.

In a recent article, Mannion and Davies argue that there are a multitude of ways in which organizations (such as the National Health Service [NHS]) can deal with wrongdoing or ethical problems, including the formation of policies that encourage and protect would-be whistleblowers. However, it is important to distinguish internal reporting about wrongdoing from whistleblowing proper, because the two are morally quite different and should not be dealt with in the same way. This article argues that we should not understand the authors’ conclusions to apply to “whistleblowing” proper, because their recommended approach would be both unfeasible and undesirable for addressing whistleblowing defined in this way.

The application of EquiFrame in the analysis of sexual and reproductive health policies by Ivanova et al to a new thematic area, their selection of only some of the Core Concepts of human rights in health service provision and the addition of new vulnerable groups relevant to the purpose of their analysis, are all very welcome developments. We also applaud their application of EquiFrame to policies in countries where it has not previously been used, along with their use of interviews with policy-makers to produce a deeper understanding of policy processes. We argue that clear justification for the inclusion of additional, or replacement of some exiting vulnerable groups within EquiFrame should be accompanied by clear definitions of such groups, along with the evidence-base that justifies their classification as a vulnerable or marginalised group. To illustrate the versatility of EquiFrame, we summarise a range of ways in which it has been used across a number of regions; including a brief Case Study of its use to develop the National Health Policy of Malawi. While EquiFrame focuses on policy content, we preview a new policy analysis tool – Equity and Inclusion in Policy Processes (EquIPP) – which assesses the extent of equity and inclusion in broader policy processes. Together, EquiFrame and EquIPP can be used to help governments and civil society ensure that policies are addressing the much stronger emphasis on social inclusion, now apparent in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

In his recent commentary, Gorik Ooms argues that “denying that researchers, like all humans, have personal opinions … drives researchers’ personal opinion underground, turning global health science into unconscious dogmatism or stealth advocacy, avoiding the crucial debate about the politics and underlying normative premises of global health.” These ‘unconscious’ dimensions of global health are as Ooms and others suggest, rooted in its unacknowledged normative, political and power aspects. But why would these aspects be either unconscious or unacknowledged? In this commentary, I argue that the ‘unconscious’ and ‘unacknowledged’ nature of the norms, politics and power that drive global health is a direct byproduct of the processes through which power operates, and a primary mechanism by which power sustains and reinforces itself. To identify what is unconscious and unacknowledged requires more than broadening the disciplinary base of global health research to those social sciences with deep traditions of thought in the domains of power, politics and norms, albeit that doing so is a fundamental first step. I argue that it also requires individual and institutional commitments to adopt reflexive, humble and above all else, equitable practices within global health research.

Politics play a central part in determining health and development outcomes as Gorik Ooms highlights in his recent commentary. As health becomes more global and more politicized the need grows to better understand the inherently political processes at all levels of governance, such as ideological positions, ideas, value judgments, and power. I agree that global health research should strengthen its contribution to generating such knowledge by drawing more on political science, such research is gaining ground. Even more important is – as Ooms indicates – that global health scholars better understand their own role in the political process. It is time to acknowledge that expert-based technocratic approaches are no less political. We will need to reflect and analyse the role of experts in global health governance to a greater extent and in that context explore the links between politics, expertise and democracy.

Ooms et al sets out some good general principles for a global social support system to improve fairer global competitiveness as a result of redistribution. This commentary sets out to summarize some of the conditions that would need to be satisfied for it to level up gradients in inequality through such a social support system, using the National Basketball Association (NBA) example as a point of reference. From this, the minimal conditions are described that would be required for the support system, proposed in the article by Ooms et al, to succeed.

Gorik Ooms recently made a strong case for considering the centrality of normative premises to analyzing and understanding the underappreciated importance of the nexus of politics, power and process in global health. This critical commentary raises serious questions for the practice and study of global health and global health governance. First and foremost, this commentary underlines the importance of the question of what is global health, and why as well as how does this definition matter? This refocuses discussion on the importance of definitions and how they wield power. It also re-affirms the necessity of a deeper analysis and understanding of power and how it affects and shapes the practice of global health.

Despite increased availability of online promotional tools for prescription drug marketers, evidence on online prescription drug promotion is far from settled or conclusive. We highlight ways in which online prescription drug promotion is similar to conventional broadcast and print advertising and ways in which it differs. We also highlight five key areas for future research: branded drug website influence on consumer knowledge and behavior, interactive features on branded drug websites, mobile viewing of branded websites and mobile advertisements, online promotion and non-US audiences, and social media and medication decisions.

Background Decentralisation aims to bring services closer to the community and has been advocated in the health sector to improve quality, access and equity, and to empower local agencies, increase innovation and efficiency and bring healthcare and decision-making as close as possible to where people live and work. Fiji has attempted two approaches to decentralisation. The current approach reflects a model of deconcentration of outpatient services from the tertiary level hospital to the peripheral health centres in the Suva subdivision. Methods Using a modified decision space approach developed by Bossert, this study measures decision space created in five broad categories (finance, service organisation, human resources, access rules, and governance rules) within the decentralised services. Results Fiji’s centrally managed historical-based allocation of financial resources and management of human resources resulted in no decision space for decentralised agents. Narrow decision space was created in the service organisation category where, with limited decision space created over access rules, Fiji has seen greater usage of its decentralised health centres. There remains limited decision space in governance. Conclusion The current wave of decentralisation reveals that, whilst the workload has shifted from the tertiary hospital to the peripheral health centres, it has been accompanied by limited transfer of administrative authority, suggesting that Fiji’s deconcentration reflects the transfer of workload only with decision-making in the five functional areas remaining largely centralised. As such, the benefits of decentralisation for users and providers are likely to be limited.

Health insecurity has emerged as a major concern among health policy-makers particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It includes the inability to secure adequate healthcare today and the risk of being unable to do so in the future as well as impoverishing healthcare expenditure. The increasing health insecurity among 150 million of the world’s poor has moved social protection in health (SPH) to the top of the agenda among health policy-makers globally. This paper aims to provide a debate on the potential of social protection contribution to addressing health insecurity, poverty, and vulnerability brought by healthcare expenditure in low-income countries, to explore the gaps in current and proposed social protection measures in healthcare and provide suggestions on how social protection intervention aimed at addressing health insecurity, poverty, and vulnerability may be effectively implemented.

We are increasingly aware of the need to be as effective and efficient as possible when designing and applying strategies to implement evidenceinformed changes into policy and practice, particularly within our resource constrained health systems. Implementation efforts consume a range of resources, including time, people, educational input, and communication systems to name just a few

We appreciate the four commentaries that add new material and fresh perspectives to our article “The pill is mightier than the sword.” In emphasizing the role of voluntary family planning and girls’ education as achievable strategies with a potential to make the world a more peaceable place, we did not mean to oversimplify or disregard the intrinsic complexity of human conflict. On the whole, the commentators support and add to our thesis, although we question Pillai and Ya-Chien Wang’s suggestion that we may have overstated the unique human predisposition to kill our own species. We present additional data on male team aggression.