Background: Global interest and investment in close-to-community health services is increasing. Kenya is currently revising its community health strategy (CHS) alongside political devolution, which will result in revisioning of responsibility for local services. This article aims to explore drivers of policy change from key informant perspectives and to study perceptions of current community health services from community and sub-county levels, including perceptions of what is and what is not working well. It highlights implications for managing policy change.Methods: We conducted 40 in-depth interviews and 10 focus group discussions with a range of participants to capture plural perspectives, including those who will influence or be influenced by CHS policy change in Kenya (policymakers, sub-county health management teams, facility managers, community health extension worker (CHEW), community health workers (CHWs), clients and community members) in two purposively selected counties: Nairobi and Kitui. Qualitative data were digitally recorded, transcribed, translated and coded before framework analysis.Results: There is widespread community appreciation for the existing strategy. High attrition, lack of accountability for voluntary CHWs and lack of funds to pay CHW salaries, combined with high CHEW workload were seen as main drivers for strategy change. Areas for change identified include: lack of clear supervisory structure including provision of adequate travel resources, current uneven coverage and equity of community health services, limited community knowledge about the strategy revision and demand for home-based HIV testing and counselling.Conclusion: This in-depth analysis which captures multiple perspectives results in robust recommendations for strategy revision informed by the Five Wonders of Change Framework. These recommendations point towards a more people-centred health system for improved equity and effectiveness and indicate priority areas for action if success of policy change through the roll-out of the revised strategy is to be realized.

In Kenya, community health volunteers link the formal healthcare system to urban and rural communities and advocate for and deliver healthcare interventions to community members. Therefore, understanding their views towards COVID-19 vaccination is critical to the country’s successful rollout of mass vaccination. The study aimed to determine vaccination intention and attitudes of community health volunteers and their potential effects on national COVID-19 vaccination rollout in Kenya. This cross-sectional study involved community health volunteers in four counties: Mombasa, Nairobi, Kajiado, and Trans-Nzoia, representing two urban and two rural counties, respectively. COVID-19 vaccination intention among community health volunteers was 81% (95% CI: 0.76–0.85). On individual binary logistic regression level, contextual influence: trust in vaccine manufacturers (adjOR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.06–4.59; p = 0.030); individual and group influences: trust in the MoH (adjOR = 2.12, 90% CI: 0.92–4.78; p = 0.073); belief in COVID-19 vaccine safety (adjOR = 3.20, 99% CI: 1.56–6.49; p = 0.002), and vaccine safety and issues: risk management by the government (adjOR = 2.46, 99% CI: 1.32–4.56; p = 0.005) and vaccine concerns (adjOR = 0.81, 90% CI: 0.64–1.01; p = 0.064), were significantly associated with vaccination intention. Overall, belief in COVID-19 vaccine safety (adjOR = 2.04, 90% CI: 0.92–4.47 p = 0.076) and risk management by the government (adjOR = 1.86, 90% CI: 0.94–3.65; p = 0.072) were significantly associated with vaccination intention. Overall vaccine hesitancy among community health volunteers in four counties in Kenya was 19% (95% CI: 0.15–0.24), ranging from 10.2−44.6% across the counties. These pockets of higher hesitancy are likely to negatively impact national vaccine rollout and future COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. The determinants of hesitancy arise from contextual, individual and group, and vaccine or vaccination specific concerns, and vary from county to county.

The process of institutionalizing community health services in Kenya required strong leadership by the Ministry of Health, effective coordination and support of stakeholders, and alignment of community health with the political priorities at the national and decentralized government levels to facilitate adequate prioritization and financing of the community health strategy.

Background Primary healthcare (PHC) systems attain improved health outcomes and fairness and are affordable. However, the proportion of PHC spending to Total Current Health Expenditure in Kenya reduced from 63.4% in 2016/17 to 53.9% in 2020/21 while external funding reduced from 28.3% (Ksh 69.4 billion) to 23.9% (Ksh 68.2 billion) over the same period. This reduction in PHC spending negatively affects PHC performance and the overall health system goals. Methods We conducted a cost-benefit analysis and computed costs against the economic benefits of a PHC scale-up. Activity-Based Costing (ABC) on the provider perspective was employed to estimate the incremental costs. The OneHealth Tool was used to estimate the health impact of operationalizing PHC over five years. Finally, we quantified Return on Investment (ROI) by estimating monetized DALYs based on a constant value per statistical life year (VSLY) derived from a VSL estimate. Results The total projected cost of PHC interventions in the Kenya was Ksh 1.65 trillion (USD 15,581.91 billion). Human resource was the main cost driver accounting for 75% of the total cost. PHC investments avert 64,430,316 Disability Adjusted Life-Years (DALYs) and generate cost savings of Ksh. 21.5 trillion (USD 204.4 Billion) over five years. Shifting services from high-level facilities to PHC facilities generates Ksh 198.2 billion (USD 1.9 billion) and yields a benefit-cost ratio of 16:1 in 5 years. Thus, every $1 invested in PHC interventions saves up to $16 in spending on conditions like stunting, NCDs, anaemia, TB, Malaria, and maternal and child health morbidity. Conclusions Evidence of the economic benefits of continued prioritization of funding for PHC can strengthen the advocacy argument for increased domestic and external financing of PHC in Kenya. A well-resourced and functional PHC system translates to substantial health benefits with positive economic benefits. Therefore, governments and stakeholders should increase investments in PHC to accelerate economic growth.

Background: The 2019 United Nations General Assembly High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage and the 2018 Declaration of Astana reaffirm the highest level of political commitment by United Nations Member States to achieve access to health services and primary healthcare for all. Both documents emphasize the importance of person-centered care in both healthcare services and systems design. However, there is limited consensus on how to build a strong primary healthcare system to achieve these goals. Methods: We convened a diverse group of global stakeholders for a high-level dialogue on how to create a person-centered primary healthcare system, using the country examples of the Republic of Kenya and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. We focused our discussion on four themes to enable the creation of person-centered primary healthcare systems in Kenya and Vietnam: (1) strengthened community, person and patient engagement in subnational and national decision making; (2) improved service delivery; (3) impactful use of innovation and technology; and (4) meaningful and timely use of measurement and data. Findings: Here, we present a summary of our convening’s proceedings, with specific insights on how to enable a person-centered primary healthcare system within each of these four domains. Conclusions: Following the 2019 United Nations General Assembly High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage and the 2018 Declaration of Astana, there is high-level commitment and global consensus that a person-centered approach is necessary to achieve high-quality primary healthcare and universal health coverage. We offer our recommendations to the global community to catalyze further discourse and inform policy-making and program development on the path to Universal Health Coverage by 2030.