IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijhplm/v41y2026i3p426-439.html

Determinants of Health Research Evidence Utilization in the Health Planning of Tanzania: Perspectives of Participants From a Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Pius Kagoma
  • Richard Mongi
  • Albino Kalolo

Abstract

Background The utilization of health research evidence is essential for informed decision‐making, especially in health planning and achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). However, limited information exists regarding its use in planning in Lower Middle‐Income Countries (LMICs), including Tanzania. This study assessed the use of health research evidence and factors influencing its utilization among health planning teams. Methods A descriptive qualitative approach was used to examine determinants of evidence use in health planning. Data were collected through six focus group discussions and 34 in‐depth interviews with planning team members from regional, council, and health facility levels. The COM‐B model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation) was applied to assess factors influencing evidence use, and thematic analysis was conducted on the transcribed data. Findings Although participants reported using available planning guidelines, the incorporation of health research evidence into planning was limited. Capability barriers included inadequate knowledge and skills for evidence‐based planning. Opportunities included planning guidelines that supported evidence use, research coordinators, policymaker‐researcher interactions, and infrastructure such as computers and the internet; however, access to knowledge translation tools was limited. Motivation was influenced by incentives such as extra duty allowances, promotions, and professional development opportunities. Conclusion The use of health research evidence in planning processes in Tanzania is low, influenced by capability, opportunity, and motivation factors. Enhancing capacity‐building, fostering collaboration, strengthening policy support, and improving infrastructure are recommended. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions and their impact on healthcare planning and delivery. Efforts were made to minimize social desirability and selection biases.

Suggested Citation

  • Pius Kagoma & Richard Mongi & Albino Kalolo, 2026. "Determinants of Health Research Evidence Utilization in the Health Planning of Tanzania: Perspectives of Participants From a Qualitative Study," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 426-439, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:41:y:2026:i:3:p:426-439
    DOI: 10.1002/hpm.70060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.70060
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hpm.70060?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van de Goor, Ien & Hämäläinen, Riitta-Maija & Syed, Ahmed & Juel Lau, Cathrine & Sandu, Petru & Spitters, Hilde & Eklund Karlsson, Leena & Dulf, Diana & Valente, Adriana & Castellani, Tommaso & Aro, A, 2017. "Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 273-281.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caixia Wang & Huijie Li, 2022. "Public Compliance Matters in Evidence-Based Public Health Policy: Evidence from Evaluating Social Distancing in the First Wave of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Jamie Bryant & Natasha Noble & Rob Sanson-Fisher & Andrew Searles & Christopher Oldmeadow & Rochelle Watson & Elise Mansfield, 2018. "Where should we target our research effort? A data-based model for determining priorities for smoking cessation research and healthcare delivery in general practice," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(2), pages 31-39, September.
    3. Kuchenmüller, Tanja & Chapman, Evelina & Takahashi, Ryoko & Lester, Louise & Reinap, Marge & Ellen, Moriah & Haby, Michelle M., 2022. "A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework for evidence to policy networks," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Ayat Ahmadi & Bahareh Yazdizadeh & Leila Doshmangir & Reza Majdzadeh & Shabnam Asghari, 2022. "PROTOCOL: Systematic review of methods to reduce risk of bias in knowledge translation interventional studies in health‐related issues," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    5. Diana Arnautu & Christian Dagenais, 2021. "Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Chan, Olivia S.K. & Lam, Wendy & Zhao, Shilin & Tun, Hein & Liu, Ping & Wu, Peng, 2024. "Why prescribe antibiotics? A systematic review of knowledge, tension, and motivation among clinicians in low-, middle- and high-income countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 345(C).
    7. Antoine Noël Racine & Jean-Marie Garbarino & Bernard Massiera & Anne Vuillemin, 2022. "Modeling the Development of Local Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policies from Empirical Data and Policy Science Theories," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:41:y:2026:i:3:p:426-439. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0749-6753 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.