Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to compare the challenges in implementing various COVID-19-related public health strategies and activities between the selected high health index and low health index states. The secondary objective was to identify the differently managed mechanisms adopted by the health-care delivery system across the states to maintain their functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: Eight states were divided into two groups; based on their health index and vulnerability index ranking-Kerala, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Karnataka in top four (Group 1) and Delhi, Tripura, Rajasthan, and Orissa in bottom four states (Group 2). RESULTS: There was lack of private sector involvement in both the groups of the states, more so in Group 2. Although transport-related issues were similar in both groups, lack of provision of vehicles for transport for carrying out various COVID and non-COVID activities seemed to be more prominent in Group 2. More obstacles related to infrastructure were observed in Group 1 states. In terms of innovations, commonalities lay in convergence of multiple departments for monitoring, contact tracing, essential supplies, and transportation. Both groups managed routine health services and fund allocation with nearly equal vigour. Major challenges faced were related to human resource, policy management, transportation, routine health services, data management, and infrastructure. HR-related challenges in top four states included confusion due to frequent change in guidelines, unclear micro-containment, and testing guidelines. Discharge guidelines and SOPs related to home isolation of slum dwellers, inter-departmental cooperation and coordination issues faced in greater proportion in top four states; issues with fund allocation for local needs were faced by the Group 2 states. Innovations implemented to meet hurdles faced during the pandemic could be categorized under heads of 'human resource', 'community actions', 'policy management', 'inter-departmental coordination', 'use of technology and media', and 'fund allocations'. There was private-public partnership; use of other human resource for health-care delivery; use of technology for health-care delivery was seen in all states but more so in Group 1 states. CONCLUSION: States with higher health index and lower vulnerability index, i.e., Group 1 states faced fewer challenges than those in Group 2. Innovative measures taken at local level to tackle problems posed by the pandemic were unique to the situations presented to them and helped control the disease as effectively as they could.