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.

Background: Priority-setting decisions are based on an important, but not sufficient set of values and thus lead to disagreement on priorities. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an ethics-based approach to a legitimate and fair priority-setting process that builds upon four conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement, which facilitate agreement on priority-setting decisions and gain support for their implementation. This paper focuses on the assessment of AFR within the project REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems (REACT). Methods: This intervention study applied an action research methodology to assess implementation of AFR in one district in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia, respectively. The assessments focused on selected disease, program, and managerial areas. An implementing action research team of core health team members and supporting researchers was formed to implement, and continually assess and improve the application of the four conditions. Researchers evaluated the intervention using qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. Results: The values underlying the AFR approach were in all three districts well-aligned with general values expressed by both service providers and community representatives. There was some variation in the interpretations and actual use of the AFR in the decision-making processes in the three districts, and its effect ranged from an increase in awareness of the importance of fairness to a broadened engagement of health team members and other stakeholders in priority setting and other decision-making processes. Conclusions: District stakeholders were able to take greater charge of closing the gap between nationally set planning and the local realities and demands of the served communities within the limited resources at hand. This study thus indicates that the operationalization of the four broadly defined and linked conditions is both possible and seems t

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

BACKGROUND: Priority-setting decisions are based on an important, but not sufficient set of values and thus lead to disagreement on priorities. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an ethics-based approach to a legitimate and fair priority-setting process that builds upon four conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement, which facilitate agreement on priority-setting decisions and gain support for their implementation. This paper focuses on the assessment of AFR within the project REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems (REACT).METHODS: This intervention study applied an action research methodology to assess implementation of AFR in one district in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia, respectively. The assessments focused on selected disease, program, and managerial areas. An implementing action research team of core health team members and supporting researchers was formed to implement, and continually assess and improve the application of the four conditions. Researchers evaluated the intervention using qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods.RESULTS: The values underlying the AFR approach were in all three districts well-aligned with general values expressed by both service providers and community representatives. There was some variation in the interpretations and actual use of the AFR in the decision-making processes in the three districts, and its effect ranged from an increase in awareness of the importance of fairness to a broadened engagement of health team members and other stakeholders in priority setting and other decision-making processes.CONCLUSIONS: District stakeholders were able to take greater charge of closing the gap between nationally set planning on one hand and the local realities and demands of the served communities on the other within the limited resources at hand. This study thus indicates that the operationalization of the four broadly defined and

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. CONCL

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.

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 particip

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 d, This paper is part of a larger study of the EU-funded REACT project, which tests the applicability of the A4R approach to priority-setting in Mbarali District in Tanzania. Other data came from a study conducted by the first author as part of his PhD research project on priority-setting in Health Care Institutions. SM was supported by a doctoral fellowship from: the Swedish Center Party Donation for Global Research Collaboration; the Swedish Research School for Global Health; the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; and the African Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship offered by the African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC) in partnership with the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Ford Foundation. PK, JB, BN, OEO and AKH were supported by the EU-funded REACT project, grant number: PL 517709. MSS was supported by the Centre for Global Health at Umea University, with support from FAS, the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (grant number 2006-1512).

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.

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 in Tanzania. The objective of this paper is to explore the acceptability of Accountability for Reasonableness from 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 the applicability and feasibility of each condition of the Accountability for Reasonableness framework to priority setting. Interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Documentary data was used to support, verify and highlight 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 the Accountability for Reasonableness framework were seen as 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 limited capacity of the district to generate local resources as the major contextual factors that hamper 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-setti, This paper is part of a larger study of the European Union's funded REACT project which is testing the applicability of the Accountability for Reasonableness approach to priority setting in Mbarali District in Tanzania. Other data came from a study conducted by the first author as part of his PhD research project on Priority Setting in Health Care Institutions. SM was supported by a doctoral fellowship from the Swedish Center Party Donation for Global Research Collaboration; Swedish Research School for Global Health; the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and the African Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship offered by the African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC) in partnership with the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Ford Foundation. AKH, JB, BN and PK were supported by the EU funded REACT project grant number: PL 517709. MSS was supported by the Centre for Global Health at the Umea University, with support from FAS, the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (grant number 2006-1512).

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.

Priority-setting has become one of the biggest challenges faced by health decision-makers worldwide. Fairness is a key goal of priority-setting and Accountability for Reasonableness has emerged as a guiding framework for fair priority-setting. This paper describes the processes of setting health care priorities in Mbarali district, Tanzania, and evaluates the descriptions against Accountability for Reasonableness. Key informant interviews were conducted with district health managers, local government officials and other stakeholders using a semi-structured interview guide. Relevant documents were also gathered and group priority-setting in the district was observed. The results indicate that, while Tanzania has a decentralized public health care system, the reality of the district level priority-setting process was that it was not nearly as participatory as the official guidelines suggest it should have been. Priority-setting usually occurred in the context of budget cycles and the process was driven by historical allocation. Stakeholders' involvement in the process was minimal. Decisions (but not the reasoning behind them) were publicized through circulars and notice boards, but there were no formal mechanisms in place to ensure that this information reached the public. There were neither formal mechanisms for challenging decisions nor an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that decisions were made in a fair and equitable manner. Therefore, priority-setting in Mbarali district did not satisfy all four conditions of Accountability for Reasonableness; namely relevance, publicity, appeals and revision, and enforcement. This paper aims to make two important contributions to this problematic situation. First, it provides empirical analysis of priority-setting at the district level in the contexts of low-income countries. Second, it provides guidance to decision-makers on how to improve fairness, legitimacy, and sustainability of the priority-setting process.

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 f