There is growing evidence that political economy factors are central to whether or not proposed health financing reforms are adopted, but there is little consensus about which political and institutional factors determine the fate of reform proposals. One set of scholars see the relative strength of interest groups in favour of and opposed to reform as the determining factor. An alternative literature identifies aspects of a country’s political institutions–specifically the number and strength of formal ‘veto gates’ in the political decision-making process—as a key predictor of reform’s prospects. A third group of scholars highlight path dependence and ‘policy feedback’ effects, stressing that the sequence in which health policies are implemented determines the set of feasible reform paths, since successive policy regimes bring into existence patterns of public opinion and interest group mobilization which can lock in the status quo. We examine these theories in the context of Malaysia, a successful health system which has experienced several instances of proposed, but ultimately blocked, health financing reforms. We argue that policy feedback effects on public opinion were the most important factor inhibiting changes to Malaysia’s health financing system. Interest group opposition was a closely related factor; this opposition was particularly powerful because political leaders perceived that it had strong public support. Institutional veto gates, by contrast, played a minimal role in preventing health financing reform in Malaysia. Malaysia’s dramatic early success at achieving near-universal access to public sector healthcare at low cost created public opinion resistant to any change which could threaten the status quo. We conclude by analysing the implications of these dynamics for future attempts at health financing reform in Malaysia.

Background Amid the current burden of non-communicable (NCD) diseases in Malaysia, there is a growing demand for more efficient service delivery of primary healthcare. A complex intervention is proposed to improve NCD management in Malaysia. This exploratory study aimed to assess primary healthcare providers’ receptiveness towards change prior to implementation of the proposed complex intervention. Method This study was conducted using an exploratory qualitative approach on purposely selected healthcare providers at primary healthcare clinics. Twenty focus group discussions and three in-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Consent was obtained prior to interviews and for audio-recordings. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework comprised of five major domains promoting implementation theory development and verification across multiple contexts. Results The study revealed via CFIR that most primary healthcare providers were receptive towards any proposed changes or intervention for the betterment of NCD care management. However, many challenges were outlined across four CFIR domains—intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics—that included perceived barriers to implementation. Perception of issues that triggered proposed changes reflected the current situation, including existing facilitating aspects that can support the implementation of any future intervention. The importance of strengthening the primary healthcare delivery system was also expressed. Conclusion Understanding existing situations faced at the primary healthcare setting is imperative prior to implementation of any intervention. Healthcare providers’ receptiveness to change was explored, and using CFIR framework, challenges or perceived barriers among healthcare providers were identified. CFIR was able to outline the clinics’ setting, individual behaviour and external agency factors that have direct impact to the organisation. These are important indicators in ensuring feasibility, effectiveness and sustainability of any intervention, as well as future scalability considerations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4312-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Combating viral outbreaks extends beyond biomedical and clinical approaches; thus, public health prevention measures are equally important. Public engagement in preventive efforts can be viewed as the social responsibility of individuals in controlling an infectious disease and are subjected to change due to human behaviour. Understanding individuals’ perception of social responsibility is crucial and is not yet explored extensively in the academic literature. We adopted the grounded theory method to develop an explanatory substantive theory to illustrate the process of how individual responded to the outbreak from a social responsibility perspective. Methods In-depth interviews were conducted among 23 Malaysians either through telephone or face-to-face depending on the participant’s preference. Both purposive and theoretical sampling were used. Participants were invited to share their understanding, perceptions and activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. They were further probed about their perceptions on complying with the public health interventions imposed by the authorities. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed via open coding, focus coding and theoretical coding, facilitated by memoing, sketching and modelling. Results Study findings showed that, social responsibility is perceived within its role, the perceived societal role responsibility. In a particular context, an individual assumed only one of the many expected social roles with their perceived circle of responsibility. Individuals negotiated their actions from this perspective, after considering the perceived risk during the outbreak. The four types of behaviour depicted in the matrix diagram facilitate the understanding of the abstract concept of negotiation in the human decision-making process, and provide the spectrum of different behaviour in relation to public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions Our study adopted the grounded theory approach to develop a theoretical model that illustrates how individual response to COVID-19 preventive measures is determined by the negotiation between perceived societal role responsibility and perceived infection risk. This substantive theoretical model is abstract, thus has relevance for adoption within similar context of an outbreak.

Background: Primary healthcare is the earliest gateway for patient care, and improvisations are often needed to accommodate the ever-increasing demand in public health. The Enhanced Primary Healthcare (EnPHC) initiative is aimed at improving such needs, and one core intervention is the introduction of a care coordinator (CC). The purpose of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators in implementing a new intervention in primary healthcare clinics. Methods: This qualitative exploration study. All healthcare providers who were involved in EnPHC at the intervention clinics were selected as participants. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were carried out among healthcare providers working in the intervention clinic. Thematic analysis was used to categorize data, based on the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) theoretical framework domains. Results: A total of 61 healthcare providers participated. All 5 domains with 19 CFIR constructs emerged from the analysis. Inner setting played a significant role in facilitating CC intervention, in which culture, networking, and collaboration and leadership engagement played an essential role in supporting CC activities. Although CC tasks are complex, concerns of losing clinical skill and resource constraints were identified as potential barriers in CC implementations. Criteria for appointing new CCs emerged from the characteristics of individual constructs, in which the individual must be familiar and interested in community health, have good communication skills, and at least 3 years’ experience in the primary healthcare setting. Conclusion: The implementation of the CC intervention faces varying challenges in different settings. This is partially resolved through teamwork, guidance from mentors, and support from superiors. The complexity of the responsibility of the CC intervention is perceived as both a validation and a burden. Above all, it is seen as paramount in EnPHC intervention.

Background: Implementation of the new Enhanced Primary Health Care (EnPHC) intervention aims to improve service quality and experience at primary healthcare clinics; especially to newly diagnosed patients. This was achieved by restructuring and improving existing services to better manage non-communicable diseases amongst patients. Objectives of this study are to explore patients' experiences of the EnPHC intervention, to document their feedback and to determine effects of EnPHC intervention on patients. Methods: This phenomenological qualitative study focussed on patients' experiences in relation to EnPHC interventions. Participants were purposely selected from a group of patients who attended the eight intervention primary healthcare clinics in Johor and Selangor regularly for treatment. Data collection was conducted between April to July 2018. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at average an hour per interview for four to five patients per clinic. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Results: A total of 35 patients participated. Analysis revealed five main themes about patient experiences receiving the EnPHC intervention. These are: (1) health assessment in disease progress monitoring, (2) patient-doctor relationship and continuity of care, (3) professionalism in service delivery, (4) ensuring compliance in achieving health targets and (5) communication skills. Each theme represents an important aspect of the service, how it should be delivered within the patient expectations and how it can improve patient's health through their lens. Conclusion: Even though patients were not able to exactly identify the EnPHC intervention components implemented, they are able to describe the process changes that occurred; enabling them to improve their healthcare status. Engagement is necessary to better inform patients of the EnPHC intervention, its purpose, mechanisms, changes and importance for healthcare. It would reduce resistance and increase awareness amongst patients at the clinic.