Search

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

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.