IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Implementing a Basic Package of Health Services in post-conflict Liberia: Perceptions of key stakeholders

Listed author(s):
  • Petit, Dörte
  • Sondorp, Egbert
  • Mayhew, Susannah
  • Roura, Maria
  • Roberts, Bayard
Registered author(s):

    Recovery of the health sector in post-conflict countries is increasingly initiated through a Basic Package of Health Services (BPHS) approach. The country government and partners, including international donors, typically contract international and local NGOs to deliver the BPHS. Evidence from routine data suggests that a BPHS approach results in rapid increases in service coverage, coordination, equity, and efficiency. However, studies also show progress may then slow down, the cause of which is not immediately obvious from routine data. Qualitative research can provide insight into possible barriers in the implementation process, particularly the role of health workers delivering the BPHS services. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of health service providers and policy makers on the implementation of the BPHS in post-conflict Liberia, using SRH services as a tracer and Lipsky's work on “street-level bureaucrats” as a theoretical framework. In July–October 2010, 63 interviews were conducted with midwives, officers-in-charge, and supervisors in two counties of Liberia, and with policy makers in Monrovia. The findings suggest health workers had a limited understanding of the BPHS and associated it with low salaries, difficult working conditions, and limited support from policy makers. Health workers responded by sub-optimal delivery of certain services (such as facility-based deliveries), parallel private services, and leaving their posts. These responses risk distorting and undermining the BPHS implementation. There were also clear differences in the perspectives of health workers and policy makers on the BPHS implementation. The findings suggest the need for greater dialogue between policy makers and health workers to improve understanding of the BPHS and recognition of the working conditions in order to help achieve the potential benefits of the BPHS in Liberia.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 78 (2013)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 42-49

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:78:y:2013:i:c:p:42-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.026
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Walker, Liz & Gilson, Lucy, 2004. "'We are bitter but we are satisfied': nurses as street-level bureaucrats in South Africa," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(6), pages 1251-1261, September.
    2. Waters, Hugh & Garrett, Brinnon & Burnham, Gilbert, 2007. "Rehabilitating Health Systems in Post-Conflict Situations," WIDER Working Paper Series 006, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Sabatier, Paul A., 1986. "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(01), pages 21-48, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:78:y:2013:i:c:p:42-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.