Search

Abstract Background Fair processes in decision making need the involvement of stakeholders who can discuss issues and reach an agreement based on reasons that are justifiable and appropriate in meeting people’s needs. In Tanzania, the policy of decentralization and the health sector reform place an emphasis on community participation in making decisions in health care. However, aspects that can influence an individual’s opportunity to be listened to and to contribute to discussion have been researched to a very limited extent in low-income settings. The objective of this study was to explore challenges to fair decision-making processes in health care services with a special focus on the potential influence of gender, wealth, ethnicity and education. We draw on the principle of fairness as outlined in the deliberative democratic theory. Methods The study was carried out in the Mbarali District of Tanzania. A qualitative study design was used. In-depth interviews and focus group discussion were conducted among members of the district health team, local government officials, health care providers and community members. Informal discussion on the topics was also of substantial value. Results The study findings indicate a substantial influence of gender, wealth, ethnicity and education on health care decision-making processes. Men, wealthy individuals, members of strong ethnic groups and highly educated individuals had greater influence. Opinions varied among the study informants as to whether such differences should be considered fair. The differences in levels of influence emerged most clearly at the community level, and were largely perceived as legitimate. Conclusions Existing challenges related to individuals’ influence of decision making processes in health care need to be addressed if greater participation is desired. There is a need for increased advocacy and a strengthening of responsive practices with an emphasis on the right of all individuals to participate in decision-making processes. This simultaneously implies an emphasis on assuring the distribution of information, training and education so that individuals can participate fully in informed decision making.

Abstract Background Despite the growing importance of the Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) framework in priority setting worldwide, there is still an inadequate understanding of the processes and mechanisms underlying its influence on legitimacy and fairness, as conceived and reflected in service management processes and outcomes. As a result, the ability to draw scientifically sound lessons for the application of the framework to services and interventions is limited. This paper evaluates the experiences of implementing the A4R approach in Mbarali District, Tanzania, in order to find out how the innovation was shaped, enabled, and constrained by the interaction between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Methods This study draws on the principles of realist evaluation -- a largely qualitative approach, chiefly concerned with testing and refining programme theories by exploring the complex interactions of contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. Mixed methods were used in data collection, including individual interviews, non-participant observation, and document reviews. A thematic framework approach was adopted for the data analysis. Results The study found that while the A4R approach to priority setting was helpful in strengthening transparency, accountability, stakeholder engagement, and fairness, the efforts at integrating it into the current district health system were challenging. Participatory structures under the decentralisation framework, central government's call for partnership in district-level planning and priority setting, perceived needs of stakeholders, as well as active engagement between researchers and decision makers all facilitated the adoption and implementation of the innovation. In contrast, however, limited local autonomy, low level of public awareness, unreliable and untimely funding, inadequate accountability mechanisms, and limited local resources were the major contextual factors that hampered the full implementation. Conclusion This study documents an important first step in the effort to introduce the ethical framework A4R into district planning processes. This study supports the idea that a greater involvement and accountability among local actors through the A4R process may increase the legitimacy and fairness of priority-setting decisions. Support from researchers in providing a broader and more detailed analysis of health system elements, and the socio-cultural context, could lead to better prediction of the effects of the innovation and pinpoint stakeholders' concerns, thereby illuminating areas that require special attention to promote sustainability.

Abstract Background In 2006, researchers and decision-makers launched a five-year project - Response to Accountable Priority Setting for Trust in Health Systems (REACT) - to improve planning and priority-setting through implementing the Accountability for Reasonableness framework in Mbarali District, Tanzania. The objective of this paper is to explore the acceptability of Accountability for Reasonableness from the perspectives of the Council Health Management Team, local government officials, health workforce and members of user boards and committees. Methods Individual interviews were carried out with different categories of actors and stakeholders in the district. The interview guide consisted of a series of questions, asking respondents to describe their perceptions regarding each condition of the Accountability for Reasonableness framework in terms of priority setting. Interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Documentary data were used to support, verify and highlight the key issues that emerged. Results Almost all stakeholders viewed Accountability for Reasonableness as an important and feasible approach for improving priority-setting and health service delivery in their context. However, a few aspects of Accountability for Reasonableness were seen as too difficult to implement given the socio-political conditions and traditions in Tanzania. Respondents mentioned: budget ceilings and guidelines, low level of public awareness, unreliable and untimely funding, as well as the limited capacity of the district to generate local resources as the major contextual factors that hampered the full implementation of the framework in their context. Conclusion This study was one of the first assessments of the applicability of Accountability for Reasonableness in health care priority-setting in Tanzania. The analysis, overall, suggests that the Accountability for Reasonableness framework could be an important tool for improving priority-setting processes in the contexts of resource-poor settings. However, the full implementation of Accountability for Reasonableness would require a proper capacity-building plan, involving all relevant stakeholders, particularly members of the community since public accountability is the ultimate aim, and it is the community that will live with the consequences of priority-setting decisions.

Abstract Despite multiple efforts to strengthen health systems in low and middle income countries, intended sustainable improvements in health outcomes have not been shown. To date most priority setting initiatives in health systems have mainly focused on technical approaches involving information derived from burden of disease statistics, cost effectiveness analysis, and published clinical trials. However, priority setting involves value-laden choices and these technical approaches do not equip decision-makers to address a broader range of relevant values - such as trust, equity, accountability and fairness - that are of concern to other partners and, not least, the populations concerned. A new focus for priority setting is needed. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an explicit ethical framework for legitimate and fair priority setting that provides guidance for decision-makers who must identify and consider the full range of relevant values. AFR consists of four conditions: i) relevance to the local setting, decided by agreed criteria; ii) publicizing priority-setting decisions and the reasons behind them; iii) the establishment of revisions/appeal mechanisms for challenging and revising decisions; iv) the provision of leadership to ensure that the first three conditions are met. REACT - "REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems" is an EU-funded five-year intervention study started in 2006, which is testing the application and effects of the AFR approach in one district each in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. The objectives of REACT are to describe and evaluate district-level priority setting, to develop and implement improvement strategies guided by AFR and to measure their effect on quality, equity and trust indicators. Effects are monitored within selected disease and programme interventions and services and within human resources and health systems management. Qualitative and quantitative methods are being applied in an action research framework to examine the potential of AFR to support sustainable improvements to health systems performance. This paper reports on the project design and progress and argues that there is a high need for research into legitimate and fair priority setting to improve the knowledge base for achieving sustainable improvements in health outcomes.

Background: The last 5-10 years have seen significant international momentum build around the field of health policy and systems research and analysis (HPSR + A). Strengthening post-graduate teaching is seen as central to the further development of this field in low- and middle-income countries. However, thus far, there has been little reflection on and documentation of what is taught in this field, how teaching is carried out, educators' challenges and what future teaching might look like.Methods: Contributing to such reflection and documentation, this paper reports on a situation analysis and inventory of HPSR + A post-graduate teaching conducted among the 11 African and European partners of the Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa (CHEPSAA), a capacity development collaboration. A first questionnaire completed by the partners collected information on organisational teaching contexts, while a second collected information on 104 individual courses (more in-depth information was subsequently collected on 17 of the courses). The questionnaires yielded a mix of qualitative and quantitative data, which were analysed through counts, cross-tabulations, and the inductive grouping of material into themes. In addition, this paper draws information from internal reports on CHEPSAA's activities, as well as its external evaluation.Results: The analysis highlighted the fluid boundaries of HPSR + A and the range and variability of the courses addressing the field, the important, though not exclusive, role of schools of public health in teaching relevant material, large variations in the time investments required to complete courses, the diversity of student target audiences, the limited availability of distance and non-classroom learning activities, and the continued importance of old-fashioned teaching styles and activities.Conclusions: This paper argues that in order to improve post-graduate teaching and continue to build the field of HPSR + A, key questions need to be addressed around educational practice issues such as the time allocated for HPSR + A courses, teaching activities, and assessments, whether HPSR + A should be taught as a cross-cutting theme in post-graduate degrees or an area of specialisation, and the organisation of teaching given the multi-disciplinary nature of the field. It ends by describing some of CHEPSAA's key post-graduate teaching development activities and how these activities have addressed the key questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared the access and utilisation of health services in public and non-public health facilities in terms of quality, equity and trust in the Mbarali district, Tanzania. Interviews, focus group discussions, and informal discussions were used to generate data. Of the 1836 respondents, 1157 and 679 respondents sought healthcare services on their last visit at public or non-public health facilities, respectively. While 45.5% rated the quality of services to be good in both types of facilities, reported medicine shortages were more pronounced among those who visited public rather than non-public health facilities (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4, 2.1). Respondents who visited public facilities were 4.9 times less likely than those who visited non-public facilities to emphasise the influence of cost in accessing and utilising health care (OR = 4.9, CI 3.9–6.1). A significant difference was also found in the provider–client relationship satisfaction level between non-public (89.1%) and public facilities (74.7%) (OR = 2.8, CI: 1.5–5.0), indicating a level of lower trust in the later. Revised strategies are needed to ensure availability of medicines in public facilities, which are used by the majority of the population, while strengthening private–public partnerships to harmonise healthcare costs. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The past two decades have seen a growing call for researchers, policy-makers and health care providers to collaborate in efforts to bridge the gaps between research, policy and practice. However, there has been a little attention focused on documenting the challenges of dealing with decision-makers in the course of implementing a research project. This paper highlights a collaborative research project aiming to implement the accountability for reasonableness (AFR) approach to priority setting in accordance with the Response to Accountable Priority Setting for Trust in Health Systems (REACT) project in Tanzania. Specifically, the paper examines the challenges of dealing with decision-makers during the project-implementation process and shows how the researchers dealt with the decision-makers to facilitate the implementation of the REACT project. Key informant interviews were conducted with the Council Health Management Team (CHMT), local government officials and other stakeholders, using a semi-structured interview guide. Minutes of the Action Research Team and CHMT were analysed. Additionally, project-implementation reports were analysed and group priority-setting processes in the district were observed. The findings show that the characteristics of the REACT research project, the novelty of some aspects of the AFR approach, such as publicity and appeals, the Action Research methodology used to implement the project and the traditional cultural contexts within which the project was implemented, created challenges for both researchers and decision-makers, which consequently slowed down the implementation of the REACT project. While collaboration between researchers and decision-makers is important in bridging gaps between research and practice, it is imperative to understand the challenges of dealing with decision-makers in the course of implementing a collaborative research project. Such analyses are crucial in designing proper strategies for improved communication and for the utilisation of research projects over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fair processes in decision making need the involvement of stakeholders who can discuss issues and reach an agreement based on reasons that are justifiable and appropriate in meeting people's needs. In Tanzania, the policy of decentralization and the health sector reform place an emphasis on community participation in making decisions in health care. However, aspects that can influence an individual's opportunity to be listened to and to contribute to discussion have been researched to a very limited extent in low-income settings. The objective of this study was to explore challenges to fair decision-making processes in health care services with a special focus on the potential influence of gender, wealth, ethnicity and education. We draw on the principle of fairness as outlined in the deliberative democratic theory. Methods: The study was carried out in the Mbarali District of Tanzania. A qualitative study design was used. In-depth interviews and focus group discussion were conducted among members of the district health team, local government officials, health care providers and community members. Informal discussion on the topics was also of substantial value. Results: The study findings indicate a substantial influence of gender, wealth, ethnicity and education on health care decision-making processes. Men, wealthy individuals, members of strong ethnic groups and highly educated individuals had greater influence. Opinions varied among the study informants as to whether such differences should be considered fair. The differences in levels of influence emerged most clearly at the community level, and were largely perceived as legitimate. Conclusions: Existing challenges related to individuals' influence of decision making processes in health care need to be addressed if greater participation is desired. There is a need for increased advocacy and a strengthening of responsive practices with an emphasis on the right of all individuals to participate in decision-making processes. This simultaneously implies an emphasis on assuring the distribution of information, training and education so that individuals can participate fully in informed decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the growing importance of the Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) framework in priority setting worldwide, there is still an inadequate understanding of the processes and mechanisms underlying its influence on legitimacy and fairness, as conceived and reflected in service management processes and outcomes. As a result, the ability to draw scientifically sound lessons for the application of the framework to services and interventions is limited. This paper evaluates the experiences of implementing the A4R approach in Mbarali District, Tanzania, in order to find out how the innovation was shaped, enabled, and constrained by the interaction between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Methods: This study draws on the principles of realist evaluation - a largely qualitative approach, chiefly concerned with testing and refining programme theories by exploring the complex interactions of contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. Mixed methods were used in data collection, including individual interviews, non-participant observation, and document reviews. A thematic framework approach was adopted for the data analysis. Results: The study found that while the A4R approach to priority setting was helpful in strengthening transparency, accountability, stakeholder engagement, and fairness, the efforts at integrating it into the current district health system were challenging. Participatory structures under the decentralisation framework, central government's call for partnership in district-level planning and priority setting, perceived needs of stakeholders, as well as active engagement between researchers and decision makers all facilitated the adoption and implementation of the innovation. In contrast, however, limited local autonomy, low level of public awareness, unreliable and untimely funding, inadequate accountability mechanisms, and limited local resources were the major contextual factors that hampered the full implementation. Conclusion: This study documents an important first step in the effort to introduce the ethical framework A4R into district planning processes. This study supports the idea that a greater involvement and accountability among local actors through the A4R process may increase the legitimacy and fairness of priority-setting decisions. Support from researchers in providing a broader and more detailed analysis of health system elements, and the socio-cultural context, could lead to better prediction of the effects of the innovation and pinpoint stakeholders' concerns, thereby illuminating areas that require special attention to promote sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2006, researchers and decision-makers launched a five-year project - Response to Accountable Priority Setting for Trust in Health Systems (REACT) - to improve planning and priority-setting through implementing the Accountability for Reasonableness framework in Mbarali District, Tanzania. The objective of this paper is to explore the acceptability of Accountability for Reasonableness from the perspectives of the Council Health Management Team, local government officials, health workforce and members of user boards and committees. Methods: Individual interviews were carried out with different categories of actors and stakeholders in the district. The interview guide consisted of a series of questions, asking respondents to describe their perceptions regarding each condition of the Accountability for Reasonableness framework in terms of priority setting. Interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Documentary data were used to support, verify and highlight the key issues that emerged. Results: Almost all stakeholders viewed Accountability for Reasonableness as an important and feasible approach for improving priority-setting and health service delivery in their context. However, a few aspects of Accountability for Reasonableness were seen as too difficult to implement given the socio-political conditions and traditions in Tanzania. Respondents mentioned: budget ceilings and guidelines, low level of public awareness, unreliable and untimely funding, as well as the limited capacity of the district to generate local resources as the major contextual factors that hampered the full implementation of the framework in their context. Conclusion: This study was one of the first assessments of the applicability of Accountability for Reasonableness in health care priority-setting in Tanzania. The analysis, overall, suggests that the Accountability for Reasonableness framework could be an important tool for improving priority-setting processes in the contexts of resource-poor settings. However, the full implementation of Accountability for Reasonableness would require a proper capacity-building plan, involving all relevant stakeholders, particularly members of the community since public accountability is the ultimate aim, and it is the community that will live with the consequences of priority-setting decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite multiple efforts to strengthen health systems in low and middle income countries, intended sustainable improvements in health outcomes have not been shown. To date most priority setting initiatives in health systems have mainly focused on technical approaches involving information derived from burden of disease statistics, cost effectiveness analysis, and published clinical trials. However, priority setting involves value-laden choices and these technical approaches do not equip decision-makers to address a broader range of relevant values - such as trust, equity, accountability and fairness - that are of concern to other partners and, not least, the populations concerned. A new focus for priority setting is needed.Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an explicit ethical framework for legitimate and fair priority setting that provides guidance for decision-makers who must identify and consider the full range of relevant values. AFR consists of four conditions: i) relevance to the local setting, decided by agreed criteria; ii) publicizing priority-setting decisions and the reasons behind them; iii) the establishment of revisions/appeal mechanisms for challenging and revising decisions; iv) the provision of leadership to ensure that the first three conditions are met.REACT - "REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems" is an EU-funded five-year intervention study started in 2006, which is testing the application and effects of the AFR approach in one district each in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. The objectives of REACT are to describe and evaluate district-level priority setting, to develop and implement improvement strategies guided by AFR and to measure their effect on quality, equity and trust indicators. Effects are monitored within selected disease and programme interventions and services and within human resources and health systems management. Qualitative and quantitative methods are being applied in an action research framework to examine the potential of AFR to support sustainable improvements to health systems performance.This paper reports on the project design and progress and argues that there is a high need for research into legitimate and fair priority setting to improve the knowledge base for achieving sustainable improvements in health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Social accountability is important for improving the delivery of health services and empowering citizens. The government of Tanzania has transferred authority to plan, budget and manage financial resources to the lower health facilities since 2017. Health facility governing committees (HFGCs) therefore play a pivotal role in ensuring social accountability. While HFGCs serve as bridges between health facilities and their communities, efforts need to be made to reinforce their capacity. This project therefore aims to understand whether, how and under what conditions informed and competent HFGCs improve social accountability., Methods and Analysis: This study adopts a participatory approach to realist evaluation, engaging members of the HFGCs, health managers and providers and community leaders to: (1) map the challenges and opportunities of the current reform, (2) develop an initial programme theory that proposes a plan to strengthen the role of the HFGCs, (3) test the programme theory by developing a plan of action, (4) refine the programme theory through multiple cycles of participatory learning and (5) propose a set of recommendations to guide processes to strengthen social accountability in the Tanzanian health system. This project is part of an ongoing strong collaboration between the University of Dar es Saalam (Tanzania), and Umeå University (Sweden), providing opportunities for action learning and close interactions between researchers, decision-makers and practitioners., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the National Ethical Review Committee in Tanzania- National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol.IX/3928). Permissions to conduct the study in the health facilities were given by the President's Office Regional Administration and Local Government and relevant regional and district authorities. The results will be published in open-access, peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Male involvement has been reported to improve maternal and child health (MCH) outcomes. However, most studies in low-income and middle-income countries have reported low participation of men in MCH-related programmes. While there is a growing interest in the involvement of men in MCH, little is known on how male involvement can be effectively promoted in settings where entrenched unequal gender roles, norms and relations constrain women from effectively inviting men to participate in MCH., Methods and Analysis: This paper reports participatory action research (PAR) aimed to promote male participation in pregnancy and childbirth in Iringa Region, Tanzania. As part of the Innovating for Maternal and Child Health in Africa project, PAR was conducted in 20 villages in two rural districts in Tanzania. Men and women were engaged separately to identify barriers to male involvement in antenatal care and during delivery; and then they were facilitated to design strategies to promote male participation in their communities. Along with the PAR intervention, researchers undertook a series of research activities. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. The common strategies designed were: engaging health facility committees; using male champions and male gatekeepers; and using female champions to sensitise and provide health education to women. These strategies were validated during stakeholders' meetings, which were convened in each community., Discussion: The use of participatory approach not only empowers communities to diagnose barriers to male involvement and develop culturally acceptable strategies but also increases sustainability of the interventions beyond the life span of the project. More lessons will be identified during the implementation of these strategies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Clinical guidelines aim to improve patient outcomes by providing recommendations on appropriate healthcare for specific clinical conditions. Scientific evidence produced over time leads to change in clinical guidelines, and a serious challenge may emerge in the process of communicating the changes to healthcare practitioners and getting new practices adopted. There is very little information on the major barriers to implementing clinical guidelines in low-income settings. Looking at how continual updates to clinical guidelines within a particular health intervention are communicated may shed light on the processes at work. The aim of this paper is to explore how the content of a series of diverging infant feeding guidelines have been communicated to managers in the Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission of HIV Programme (PMTCT) with the aim of generating knowledge about both barriers and facilitating factors in the dissemination of new and updated knowledge in clinical guidelines in the context of weak healthcare systems., Methods: A total of 22 in-depth interviews and two focus group discussions were conducted in 2011. All informants were linked to the PMTCT programme in Tanzania. The informants included managers at regional and district levels and health workers at health facility level., Results: The informants demonstrated partial and incomplete knowledge about the recommendations. There was lack of scientific reasoning behind various infant feeding recommendations. The greatest challenges to the successful communication of the infant feeding guidelines were related to slowness of communication, inaccessible jargon-ridden English language in the manuals, lack of summaries, lack of supportive supervision to make the guidelines comprehensible, and the absence of a reading culture., Conclusion: The study encountered substantial gaps in knowledge about the diverse HIV and infant feeding policies. These gaps were partly related to the challenges of communicating the clinical guidelines. There is a need for caution in assuming that important changes in guidelines for clinical practice can easily be translated to and implemented in local programme settings, not least in the context of weak healthcare systems.

Background: Community participation in priority setting in health systems has gained importance all over the world, particularly in resource-poor settings where governments have often failed to provide adequate public-sector services for their citizens. Incorporation of public views into priority setting is perceived as a means to restore trust, improve accountability, and secure cost-effective priorities within healthcare. However, few studies have reported empirical experiences of involving communities in priority setting in developing countries. The aim of this article is to provide the experience of implementing community participation and the challenges of promoting it in the context of resource-poor settings, weak organizations, and fragile democratic institutions., Design: Key informant interviews were conducted with the Council Health Management Team (CHMT), community representatives, namely women, youth, elderly, disabled, and people living with HIV/AIDS, and other stakeholders who participated in the preparation of the district annual budget and health plans. Additionally, minutes from the Action Research Team and planning and priority-setting meeting reports were analyzed., Results: A number of benefits were reported: better identification of community needs and priorities, increased knowledge of the community representatives about priority setting, increased transparency and accountability, promoted trust among health systems and communities, and perceived improved quality and accessibility of health services. However, lack of funds to support the work of the selected community representatives, limited time for deliberations, short notice for the meetings, and lack of feedback on the approved priorities constrained the performance of the community representatives. Furthermore, the findings show the importance of external facilitation and support in enabling health professionals and community representatives to arrive at effective working arrangement., Conclusion: Community participation in priority setting in developing countries, characterized by weak democratic institutions and low public awareness, requires effective mobilization of both communities and health systems. In addition, this study confirms that community participation is an important element in strengthening health systems.

The Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH) has received support from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labor Office (ILO) to publish the African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety. The African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety should not be a medium for industry propaganda, or the source of misinformation among the workers of Africa. Instead, FIOH should provide the same level of scientific information in Africa that it does in Finland and other developed countries.

Developing countries have no significant policies for occupational health. This analysis identifies four broad mechanisms through which state- and enterprise-level decision makers in developing countries diffuse attemps to instigate improvements in occupational health: inaction or stifling of such efforts during policy implementation; exercise of power; appeal to the existing bias (norms, rules, procedures) of the system; and prevailing dominant ideology. Addressing these limiting factors requires initiating a process of raising the occupational health policy profile that recognizes the importance of empowering workers' organizations, and enabling professionals to play an active role in the generation of occupational health knowledge required to improve occupational health in the developing countries.