Browsing by Author "Hurtig, Anna-Karin"

Now showing 1 - 14 of 14
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Accountability for Reasonableness Approach to Guide Priority Setting in Health Systems Within Limited Resources – Findings From Action Research at District Level in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia
    (2014-12) Byskov, Jens; Marchal, Bruno; Maluka, Stephen; Zulu, Joseph M.; Bukachi, Salome A.; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; Blystad, Astrid; Kamuzora, Peter; Michelo, Charles; Nyandieka, Lilian N.; Ndawi, Benedict; Bloch, Paul; Olsen, Øystein E.; Consortium, React
    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).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Accountable Priority Setting for Trust in Health Systems - the Need for Research into a New Approach for Strengthening sustainable Health Action in Developing Countries
    (BioMed Central, 2009) ByskovEmail, Jens; Bloch, Paul; Blystad, Astrid; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; Fylkesnes, Knut; Kamuzora, Peter; Kombe, Yeri; Kvåle, Gunnar; Marchal, Bruno; Martin, Douglas K; Michelo, Charles; Ndawi, Benedict; Ngulube, Thabale J; Nyamongo, Isaac; Olsen, Øystein E; Onyango-Ouma, Washington; Sandøy, Ingvild F; Shayo, Elizabeth H; Silwamba, Gavin; Songstad, Nils G; Tuba, Mary
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Autonomy without capacity: the role of health facility governing committees in planning and budgeting in Tanzania
    (University of Dar es Salaam, 2023-03) Maluka, Stephen; Kamuzora, Peter; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; San Sebastian, Miguel; Mtasingwa, Lilian; Kapologwe, Ntuli
    Since the inception of health-sector reforms in Tanzania in the 1990s, health planning and implementation was decentralised to the Council Health Management Teams (CHMTs) headed by the District Medical Officer (DMO). This arrangement centralised the autonomy for planning, budgeting and resource allocation at the district level with very limited autonomy and authority at the health facility and community level. Since 2017/2018, the government of Tanzania has further transferred the autonomy to plan, budget and manage financial resources to health facilities. Under the current arrangements, each health facility prepares its comprehensive annual health plan and budget, and funds for the implementation of the plans are transferred directly from the Ministry of Finance and Planning (MoFP) to health facilities; the policy known as Direct Health Facility Financing (DHFF). Each health facility is supposed to have a planning team responsible for preparing annual plans. The team is required to: (i) conduct a thorough assessment of the implementation of the previous year comprehensive health facility plans to guide preparation of subsequent annual plan; (ii) gather community opinions regarding priorities and challenges in accessing health care services to inform the planning process; (iii) conduct a robust situational analysis about the morbidity and mortality trends, underlying causes and health system bottlenecks hampering the delivery and uptake of interventions; (iv) prepare plans in accordance to existing guidelines; (v) provide feedback of the approved facility plan to Health Facility Governing Committee (HFGC), Village Development Committee (VDC) and Ward Development Committee (WDC); and (vi) ensure that the plans are responsive to local needs (facility and population). The central government issues guidelines that steer the planning process at the district and health facility levels. The CHMTs and health facilities need to abide by these guidelines when preparing their annual health plans. Similarly, the central government supplies the budget making guidelines, which stipulate the ‘budget ceilings’ that every district and health facility has to adhere to. All facility plans are at later stage consolidated into a Comprehensive Council Health Plan (CCHP) for the whole district. Similarly, the preparation of the CCHP is led by a guideline from the central government. The consolidation process is done by the CCHP planning team led by the District Medical Officers (DMOs). After endorsement at the Council level, the plan is submitted to the Regional Secretariat (RS) for assessment, approval and submission to the national level. At this level, the plan is assessed by assessors comprising members from the President’s Office-Regional Administration and Local Government (PORALG) – Health and MoH and recommended for funding.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Decentralization and Health Care Prioritization Process in Tanzania: from National Rhetoric to local Reality
    (2011) Maluka, Stephen O.; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; Sebastián, Miguel S; Shayo, Elizabeth; Byskov, Jens; Kamuzora, Peter
    During the 1990s, Tanzania like many other developing countries adopted health sector reforms. The most common policy change under the health sector reforms has been decentralization, which involves the transfer of power and authority from the central level to local authorities. Based on the case study of Mbarali district in Tanzania, this paper uses a policy analysis approach to analyse the implementation of decentralized health care priority setting. Specifically, the paper examines the process, actors and contextual factors shaping decentralized health care priority setting processes. The analysis and conclusion are based on a review of documents, key informant interviews, focus group discussion, and notes from non-participant observation. The findings of the study indicate that local institutional contexts and power asymmetries among actors have a greater influence on the prioritization process at the local level than expected and intended. The paper underlines the essentially political character of the decentralization process and reiterates the need for policy analysts to pay attention to processes, institutional contexts, and the role of policy actors in shaping the implementation of the decentralization process at the district level. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Decentralization and Health Care Prioritization Process in Tanzania: From National Rhetoric to Local Reality
    (2011-03) Maluka, Stephen; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; Sebastian, Miguel San; Shayo, Elizabeth; Byskov, Jens; Kamuzora, Peter
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Implementing Accountability for Reasonableness Framework at District Level in Tanzania: a Realist Evaluation
    (BioMed Central, 2011) Maluka, Stephen O.; Kamuzora, Peter; SanSebastián, Miguel; Byskov, Jens; Ndawi, Benedict; Olsen, Øystein E; Hurtig, Anna-Karin
    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
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Implementing Accountability for Reasonableness Framework at District Level in Tanzania: A Realist Evaluation
    (2011-02) Maluka, Stephen; Kamuzora, Peter; Sansebastián, Miguel; Byskov, Jens; Ndawi, Benedict; Olsen, Øystein E.; Hurtig, Anna-Karin
    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. 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. 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. 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Improving District Level Health Planning and Priority Setting in Tanzania through Implementing Accountability for Reasonableness Framework: Perceptions of stakeholders
    (BioMed Central, 2010-12) Kamuzora, Peter; Sebastián, Miguel S; Byskov, Jens; Ndawi, Benedict; Hurtig, Anna-Karin
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Improving District Level Health Planning and Priority Setting in Tanzania Through Implementing Accountability for Reasonableness Framework: Perceptions of Stakeholders
    (2010-12) Maluka, Stephen; Kamuzora, Peter; Sebastian, Miguel San; Byskov, Jens; Ndawi, Benedict; Hurtig, Anna-Karin
    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. 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. 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. 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Promoting Community Participation in Priority Setting in District Health Systems: Experiences From Mbarali District, Tanzania
    (2013-11) Kamuzora, Peter; Maluka, Stephen; Ndawi, Benedict; Byskov, Jens; Hurtig, Anna-Karin
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Promoting Community Participation in Priority Setting in District Health Systems: Experiences from Mbarali District, Tanzania
    (Co-action Publishing, 2013) Kamuzora, Peter; Maluka, Stephen O.; Ndawi, Benedict; Byskov, Jens; Hurtig, Anna-Karin
    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 publicsector 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Promoting community participation through health facility governing committees to improve the performance of district health systems in Tanzania
    (University of Dar es Salaam, 2023-03) Kamuzora, Peter; Maluka, Stephen; San Sebastian, Miguel; Mtasingwa, Lilian; Kapologwe, Ntuli; Hurtig, Anna-Karin
    A research project entitled “Examining the effects of decision-making space and its practices on health systems performance in Tanzania” was conducted in twenty districts of Tanzania between 2020 and 2023. The main objective of this research was to better understand and evaluate how and if decentralised sub-national structures used the opportunities to improve the performance of health systems. Two universities: the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Umeå University, Sweden, collaborated in the implementation of this project. To understand the opportunities that Tanzania’s decentralization structure has to offer, this research focused on the decision-making space provided to officials at the local levels over the health system functions of planning, financing, human resources, service delivery, and governance. Tanzania’s decentralization policy allows Health Facility Governing Committees (HFGCs), on behalf of the communities, to participate in these health system functions. The HFGCs consisting of community members have become integral in the decentralization reforms which have been implemented since 1990s. The government expects health care providers to involve HFGCs in the management of health facilities, including making decisions that best serve the interests of the community. HFGCs should be involved in decisions such as approving all transactions that are made at the health facilities, inspecting health commodities procured by health facilities prior to dispensing, taking part in the making of plans and budgets of health facility and holding health care providers accountable for the performance of their health facilities. This policy brief synthesizes the key findings of the research conducted to assess how HFGCs participated in the implementation of functions that have been decentralized to the district level in Tanzania.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A systems perspective on the importance of global health strategy developments for accomplishing today’s Sustainable Development Goals
    (Oxford University Press, 2019-07-30) Byskov, Jens; Maluka, Stephen; Marchal, Bruno; Shayo, Elizabeth; Blystad, Astrid; Bukachi, Salome; Zulu, Joseph; Michelo, Charles; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; Bloch, Paul
    Priority setting within health systems has not led to accountable, fair and sustainable solutions to improving population health. Providers, users and other stakeholders each have their own health and service priorities based on selected evidence, own values, expertise and preferences. Based on a historical account, this article analyses if contemporary health systems are appropriate to optimize population health within the framework of cross cutting targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We applied a scoping review approach to identify and review literature of scientific databases and other programmatic web and library-based documents on historical and contemporary health systems policies and strategies at the global level. Early literature supported the 1977 launching of the global target of Health for All by the year 2000. Reviewed literature was used to provide a historical overview of systems components of global health strategies through describing the conceptualizations of health determinants, user involvement and mechanisms of priority setting over time, and analysing the importance of historical developments on barriers and opportunities to accomplish the SDGs. Definitions, scope and application of health systems-associated priority setting fluctuated and main health determinants and user influence on global health systems and priority setting remained limited. In exploring reasons for the identified lack of SDG-associated health systems and priority setting processes, we discuss issues of accountability, vested interests, ethics and democratic legitimacy as conditional for future sustainability of population health. To accomplish the SDGs health systems must engage beyond their own sector boundary. New approaches to Health in All Policies and One Health may be conducive for scaling up more democratic and inclusive priority setting processes based on proper process guidelines from successful pilots. Sustainable development depends on population preferences supported by technical and managerial expertise.