ArticleImplementation science : IS2011
Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania: a realist evaluation.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a systematic literature review.Health policy and planning · 2016Pooled it
- The Process Is Not the Point: Moral Uncertainty and Substantive Justice in Health Care Priority Setting.Bioethics · 2026Article
- Healthcare managers' perspectives on direct health facility financing in Tanzania.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Financing immunisation in Kenya: examining bottlenecks in health sector planning and budgeting at the decentralised level.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- Procedural fairness in health financing for universal health coverage: why, what and how.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- How does power shape district health management team responsiveness to public feedback in low- and middle-income countries: an interpretive synthesis.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- Social accountability in primary health care facilities in Tanzania: Results from Star Rating Assessment.PloS one · 2022Article
- Inequitable access to healthcare in Africa: reconceptualising the "accountability for reasonableness framework" to reflect indigenous principles.International journal for equity in health · 2021Article
- Priority setting for health system strengthening in low income countries. A qualitative case study illustrating the complexities.Health systems (Basingstoke, England) · 2021Article
- "There Is No Link Between Resource Allocation and Use of Local Data": A Qualitative Study of District-Based Health Decision-Making in West Bengal, India.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Public engagement in the development of the National Health Insurance: a study involving patients from a central hospital in South Africa.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Is evidence-informed urban health planning a myth or reality? Lessons from a qualitative assessment in three Asian cities.Health policy and planning · 2019Article
- Realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher.BMJ global health · 2019Review
- Community based interventions for strengthening adolescent sexual reproductive health and rights: how can they be integrated and sustained? A realist evaluation protocol from Zambia.Reproductive health · 2018Article
- Factors influencing the capacity of women to voice their concerns about maternal health services in the Muanda and Bolenge Health Zones, Democratic Republic of the Congo: a multi-method study.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Considerations for Assessing the Appropriateness of High-Cost Pediatric Care in Low-Income Regions.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2018Review
- Evaluating healthcare priority setting at the meso level: A thematic review of empirical literature.Wellcome open research · 2018Article
- Protocol for a mixed-methods realist evaluation of a health service user feedback system in Bangladesh.BMJ open · 2017Article
- The Need for Global Application of the Accountability for Reasonableness Approach to Support Sustainable Outcomes Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".International journal of health policy and management · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.