Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26679408›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2015

Factors affecting adoption, implementation fidelity, and sustainability of the Redesigned Community Health Fund in Tanzania: a mixed methods protocol for process evaluation in the Dodoma region.

Albino Kalolo, Ralf Radermacher, Manfred Stoermer, Menoris Meshack, Manuela De Allegri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Albino KaloloInstitute of Public Health, Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ralf RadermacherDeutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Manfred StoermerSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Menoris MeshackHealth Promotion and System Strengthening (HPSS) project, Dodoma, Tanzania.
Manuela De AllegriInstitute of Public Health, Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the implementation of various initiatives to address low enrollment in voluntary micro health insurance (MHI) schemes in sub-Saharan Africa, the problem of low enrollment remains unresolved. The lack of process evaluations of such interventions makes it difficult to ascertain whether their poor results are because of design failures or implementation weaknesses.

objectiveIn this paper, we describe a process evaluation protocol aimed at opening the 'black box' to evaluate the implementation processes of the Redesigned Community Health Fund (CHF) program in the Dodoma region of Tanzania.

designThe study employs a cross-sectional mixed methods design and is being carried out 3 years after the launch of the Redesigned CHF program. The study is grounded in a conceptual framework which rests on the Diffusion of Innovation Theory and the Implementation Fidelity Framework. The study utilizes a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data collection tools (questionnaires, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, and document review), and aligns the evaluation to the Theory of Intervention developed by our team. Quantitative data will be used to measure program adoption, implementation fidelity, and their moderating factors. Qualitative data will be used to explore the responses of stakeholders to the intervention, contextual factors, and moderators of adoption, implementation fidelity, and sustainability. DISCUSSION: This protocol describes a systematic process evaluation in relation to the implementation of a reformed MHI. We trust that the theoretical approaches and methodologies described in our protocol may be useful to inform the design of future process evaluations focused on the assessment of complex interventions, such as MHI schemes.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareFocus GroupsHumansInsurance, HealthInterviews as TopicPovertyProgram EvaluationPublic HealthSurveys and QuestionnairesTanzaniaCommunity Health Fund in Tanzaniacomplex interventionsinnovations to increase enrollmentlow enrollmentmicro health insurancemixed methodsprocess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID26679408
PMCPMC4683988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.