| 1. |
- Amour, Maryam A., et al.
(författare)
-
Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers in Tanzania : A Mixed-Methods Study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: COVID. - : MDPI. - 2673-8112. ; 3:5, s. 777-791
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents a major threat to public health but can be prevented by safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers (HCWs) is essential to promote uptake. This study, aimed to determine the COVID-19 vaccination uptake and hesitancy and its associated factors among HCWs in Tanzania. We employed a convergent-parallel mixed-methods design among 1368 HCWs across health facilities in seven geographical zones in Tanzania in 2021. We collected quantitative data by using an interviewer-administered questionnaire and qualitative data, using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Participants in the quantitative aspect were conveniently selected whereas those in the qualitative aspect were purposively selected based on their role in patient care, management, and vaccine provision. Stata software version 16.1 was used in the analysis of quantitative data and thematic analysis for the qualitative data. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The median age of 1368 HCWs was 33, and the interquartile range was 28-43 years; 65.6% were aged 30+ years, and 60.1% were females. Over half (53.4%) of all HCWs received the COVID-19 vaccine, 33.6% completely refused, and 13% chose to wait. HCWs aged 40+ years, from lower-level facilities (district hospitals and health centers), who worked 6+ years, and with perceived high/very high risk of COVID-19 infection had significantly higher odds of vaccine uptake. The qualitative data revealed misinformation and inadequate knowledge about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy as the key barriers to uptake. Nearly half of all HCWs in Tanzania are still unvaccinated against COVID-19. The predominance of contextual influence on COVID-19 vaccine uptake calls for interventions to focus on addressing contextual determinants, focusing on younger HCWs' population, short working duration, those working at different facility levels, and providing adequate vaccine knowledge.
|
|
| 2. |
- Byskov, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
A systems perspective on the importance of global health strategy developments for accomplishing today’s Sustainable Development Goals
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Health Policy and Planning. - : Oxford University Press. - 0268-1080 .- 1460-2237. ; 34:9, s. 635-645
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Byskov, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
Accountable priority setting for trust in health systems : the need for research into a new approach for strengthening sustainable health action in developing countries
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Health Research Policy and Systems. - : BioMed Central. - 1478-4505. ; 7, s. 23-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Byskov, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
The Need for Global Application of the Accountability for Reasonableness Approach to Support Sustainable Outcomes Comment on "Expanded HTA Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy"
- 2017
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Health Policy and Management. - : Kerman University of Medical Sciences. - 2322-5939. ; 6:2, s. 115-118
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The accountability for reasonableness (AFR) concept has been developed and discussed for over two decades. Its interpretation has been studied in several ways partly guided by the specific settings and the researchers involved. This has again influenced the development of the concept, but not led to universal application. The potential use in health technology assessments (HTAs) has recently been identified by Daniels et al as yet another excellent justification for AFR-based process guidance that refers to both qualitative and a broader participatory input for HTA, but it has raised concerns from those who primarily support the consistency and objectivity of more quantitative and reproducible evidence. With reference to studies of AFR-based interventions and the through these repeatedly documented motivation for their consolidation, we argue that it can even be unethical not to take AFR conditions beyond their still mainly formative stage and test their application within routine health systems management for their expected support to more sustainable health improvements. The ever increasing evidence and technical expertise are necessary but at times contradictory and do not in isolation lead to optimally accountable, fair and sustainable solutions. Technical experts, politicians, managers, service providers, community members, and beneficiaries each have their own values, expertise and preferences, to be considered for necessary buy in and sustainability. Legitimacy, accountability and fairness do not come about without an inclusive and agreed process guidance that can reconcile differences of opinion and indeed differences in evidence to arrive at a by all understood, accepted, but not necessarily agreed compromise in a current context -until major premises for the decision change. AFR should be widely adopted in projects and services under close monitoring and frequent reviews.
|
|
| 5. |
- Metta, Emmy, et al.
(författare)
-
The role of trust in the implementation and uptake of COVID-19 response measures : a qualitative study of health professionals' experiences in Tanzania
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BMC Health Services Research. - 1472-6963. ; 23
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Even though trust is placed at the central point in ensuring proper functioning of the health systems, studies remain scant on how it affects both the implementation and uptake of COVID-19 response measures in low- and middle-income countries such as Tanzania. This study, therefore, explored the role of trust in the implementation and uptake of recommended COVID-19 response measures including vaccines from the perspective of health professionals in Tanzania.METHODS: This cross-sectional qualitative study was implemented in four of Tanzania's thirty-one regions. Qualitative data was collected through 26 in-depth interviews held with regional and district disease outbreak response teams, district cold chain co-ordinators and health facility in-charges. In addition, five focus group discussions and seven group interviews were conducted with healthcare workers from the lower-level health facilities. Thematic analysis was conducted and applied the trust constructs.RESULTS: Interpersonal trust and health system trust emerged as two major themes in the study. Interpersonal trust was reported to stem from lack of transparency that instigated fear, worries, and confusion regarding the implementation and uptake of the recommended response measures. The distrust was mainly between health professionals in health facilities and those assigned to isolation centres as well as between patients and community members. On the other hand, the health system trust was shaped by mixed feelings regarding COVID-19 vaccine national decisions, and conflicting messages from national officials, politicians and religious leaders on COVID-19 responses, safety, and effectiveness of the vaccines. Questions surrounding the short duration of clinical trials, indeterminate post-vaccination protection duration, impotence-linked beliefs, freemasonry notion and unclear vaccinated cards information are other reported contributory factors to mistrust in the health system. However, after a comprehensive health education and experience in COVID-19 vaccination administration most professionals affirmed the effectiveness of the vaccines in limiting infections and its severe consequences.CONCLUSION: Participants indicated limited trust at both interpersonal and health system levels aggravated by lack of transparency, unclear and conflicting messages on COVID-19 infections and response measures. Enforced transparency on pandemics alongside standardised messages from the reliable sources is crucial in enhancing trust in implementation and uptake of the recommended response measures.
|
|
