Author
Listed:
- Erick S Kinyenje
- Talhiya A Yahya
- Joseph C Hokororo
- Eliudi S Eliakimu
- Mohamed A Mohamed
- Mbwana M Degeh
- Omary A Nassoro
- Chrisogone C German
- Radenta P Bahegwa
- Yohanes S Msigwa
- Ruth R Ngowi
- Laura E Marandu
- Syabo M Mwaisengela
Abstract
Background: Star Rating Assessment (SRA) was initiated in 2015 in Tanzania aiming at improving the quality of services provided in Primary Healthcare (PHC) facilities. Social accountability (SA) is among the 12 assessment areas of SRA tools. We aimed to assess the SA performance and its predictors among PHC facilities in Tanzania based on findings of a nationwide reassessment conducted in 2017/18. Methods: We used the SRA database with results of 2017/2018 to perform a cross-sectional secondary data analysis on SA dataset. We used proportions to determine the performance of the following five SA indicators: functional committees/boards, display of information on available resources, addressing local concerns, health workers’ engagement with local community, and involvement of community in facility planning process. A facility needed four indicators to be qualified as socially accountable. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to determine facilities characteristics associated with SA, namely location (urban or rural), ownership (private or public) and level of service (hospital, health centre or dispensary). Results: We included a total of 3,032 PHC facilities of which majority were dispensaries (86.4%), public-owned (76.3%), and located in rural areas (76.0%). On average, 30.4% of the facilities were socially accountable; 72.0% engaged with local communities; and 65.5% involved communities in facility planning process. Nevertheless, as few as 22.5% had functional Health Committees/Boards. A facility was likely to be socially-accountable if public-owned [AOR 5.92; CI: 4.48–7.82, p = 0.001], based in urban areas [AOR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.01–1.53, p = 0.038] or operates at a level higher than Dispensaries (Health centre or Hospital levels) Conclusion: Most of the Tanzanian PHC facilities are not socially accountable and therefore much effort in improving the situation should be done. The efforts should target the lower-level facilities, private-owned and rural-based PHC facilities. Regional authorities must capacitate facility committees/boards and ensure guidelines on SA are followed.
Suggested Citation
Erick S Kinyenje & Talhiya A Yahya & Joseph C Hokororo & Eliudi S Eliakimu & Mohamed A Mohamed & Mbwana M Degeh & Omary A Nassoro & Chrisogone C German & Radenta P Bahegwa & Yohanes S Msigwa & Ruth R , 2022.
"Social accountability in primary health care facilities in Tanzania: Results from Star Rating Assessment,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-17, July.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0268405
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268405
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- repec:bla:devpol:v:23:y:2005:i:2:p:165-182 is not listed on IDEAS
- Adeola I. Oyeyemi & Daniel E. Gberevbie & Jide Ibietan, 2021.
"Citizens Participation and Primary Healthcare Policy Implementation in Ogun State, Nigeria: An Empirical and Systems Enquiry,"
Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, Conscientia Beam, vol. 9(1), pages 50-57.
- Adeola I Oyeyemi & Daniel E Gberevbie & Jide Ibietan, 2021.
"Citizens Participation and Primary Healthcare Policy Implementation in Ogun State, Nigeria: An Empirical and Systems Enquiry,"
Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, Conscientia Beam, vol. 9(1), pages 50-57.
- Yvonne Wang?i Machira, 2015.
"Integrating Social Accountability in Healthcare Delivery,"
World Bank Publications - Reports
21666, The World Bank Group.
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.
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:plo:pone00:0268405. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.