Decision making in district health planning in Uganda : Does use of local evidence matter?

Introduction In a decentralized health system, district health managers are tasked with planning for health service delivery which should be evidence-based. However, planning in low-income countries such as Uganda, has been described as ad hoc. A systematic approach to the planning process using district-specific evidence was introduced to district health managers in Uganda. However, little is known about how the use of district-specific evidence does inform the planning process. In this study we further investigate how the use of this evidence affects the annual planning process. Methodology The study was conducted in two districts that were introduced to the systematic approach of using district-specific evidence in the planning process. District annual health work plans for financial years 2012/13; 2013/14; 2014/15 and 2015/16 and bottleneck analysis reports for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 were reviewed. Semi-structured interviews with key informants from the districts were also conducted. Results District managers reported that they were able to produce more robust district annual work plans when they used district-specific evidence. About half of the priority activities that were identified using district-specific evidence were included in the annual work plans. Procurement and logistics, training and support supervision activities were the most prioritized. Use of local evidence was viewed positively by the health managers. However, there was a lack of clarity on what activities should be incorporated in the annual work plans and district managers considered the lack of autonomy or decision space as a constraint to the use of district-specific evidence. Conclusion District-specific evidence and a structured process for its use to prioritize activities and make decisions in the planning process at the district level helped systematize the planning process. Health managers were able to articulate and advocate for priorities related to child survival. However, the reported limited decision and fiscal space, human resource gaps, inadequate funding and high dependency on donor funding did not always allow for use of district-specific evidence in the planning process.