Table 4. Uganda DHO Characterization of Health System Components in Their Districts, 2005-2011 .
| Non-HIV Service Delivery Outcome | 2005/2006 | 2007/2008 | 2010/2011 |
| Planning Capacity | |||
| Did this district have a strategic plan that covers the year 2011? | 98% Yes (but only 43% of these plans were observed) 80% of these included NGOs and 61% included CBOs. | ||
| M&E | |||
| Did you use national guidelines on support supervision? | 91% | 88% | 90% |
| Were private clinics monitored? | 69% | 65% | 68% |
| Were private labs monitored? | 57% | 51% | 55% |
| Were private drug shops monitored? | 76% | 81% | 76% |
| Resource Mobilization | |||
| Did this district apply for funds or send out proposal applications beyond the ministry of health (to a non-government funding opportunity)? | 31% | 44% | 49% |
| Managing Medical Supplies and Equipment | |||
| Did you have a district assistant inspector for drugs? | 75% | 72% | 60% |
| If not, did you have someone formally assigned to conduct drug inspections in the district? | 59% | 65% | 66% |
| Did you have reports on state of equipment and inventory needs in the district? | 65% | 76% | 76% |
| Managing HRs for Health | |||
| Did the district have a functional service commission? | 90% | 91% | 62% |
| Did the district have a HRs for health development plan? | 63% | 66% | 84% |
| Was there a computerized system for tracking the number and movement of health workers (eg, HMIS)? | 16% | 19% | 40% |
| Was there a “hard to reach” allowance to attract health workers? | 7% | 21% | 23% |
| Was there a “pay for performance” scheme? | 5% | 4% | 5% |
| Was there a career development opportunity, such as study leave? | 51% | 54% | 57% |
| Were there short-term trainings available (eg, workshops)? | 58% | 61% | 67% |
| Were there top-up allowances or bonuses? | 21% | 30% | 38% |
| How many technical staff were working in the district office, as a proportion of population? (per 1000 population) | 0.020 | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| How many support staff were working in the district office, as a proportion of population? (per 1000 population) | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Was there a time the DHO position was vacant or filled by an acting appointee between 2005-2011? | No vacancies = 22%, 74% vacant with an acting | ||
| How many DHOs has the district had since 2005? | 65% had only 1 (no turnover), 22% had 2, 13% had 3 or more | ||
| Engaging and Coordinating Stakeholders | |||
| Did you have a desk officer for coordinating public/private partnerships for health in the district? | 22% | 24% | 42% |
| Did you conduct any activity to determine the level of community satisfaction with health services in the district? | 42% | 47% | 59% |
| Managing Information Systems and Outbreak Investigations | |||
| Did the district have a staff person with a degree in statistics or biostatistics in charge of HMIS? | 9% | 31% | 45% |
| If not, did you have someone responsible for analyzing routine data in the district? | 97% | 98% | 98% |
| How was routine data stored in the district? | |||
| Electronically | 2% | 6% | 7% |
| On paper | 45% | 29% | 12% |
| Both | 53% | 65% | 80% |
| How was routine data transmitted from the district to Ministry HQ? | |||
| Electronically | 6% | 27% | 56% |
| On paper | 75% | 49% | 10% |
| Both | 19% | 23% | 33% |
| Did your district participate in an outbreak investigation? | 20% | 46% | 42% |
Abbreviations: DHO, District Health Officer; HRs, human resources; NGOs, non-governmental organizations; HMIS, health management information system; CBOs, community-based organizations; HQ, headquarters.
Percentages displayed reflect the portion of respondents answering “Yes” unless otherwise noted.
Table provided for descriptive purposes. Full quantitative analyses and discussion of statistical tests for trends 2005-2011 provided in Luboga et al.50