ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploratory mixed-methods analysis of the determinants of use of health research evidence among planning teams in Tanzania.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAchieving universal health coverage requires the use of health research evidence in decision-making; however, this remains understudied in lower and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Tanzania. Despite several health sector reforms and the availability of locally generated research, evidence indicates that the use of such research in health planning and decision-making remains limited in Tanzania, creating a gap between research production and its practical application. This study examined the extent of research evidence used in health planning and the factors influencing its use among health planning teams. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design was employed, starting with qualitative data from focus group discussions (N=6) and KIIs (N=34) with health planners from selected regions in Tanzania, recruited based on their direct involvement in health planning, using semistructured guides informed by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. This was followed by a quantitative survey of 422 participants meeting the same inclusion criteria, administered with a structured questionnaire derived from the model. The COM-B framework guided both tool development and analysis. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using a framework approach, yielding three themes, while quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.
resultsQualitative findings revealed barriers such as limited knowledge and skills, inadequate access to knowledge translation tools, poor dissemination processes, financial and technical constraints, and lack of training. Opportunities included supportive guidelines, research coordinators, collaborations, dedicated budgets and improved internet access. Motivators such as job promotions, professional development, allowances and targeted training were also identified. Quantitative results showed moderate evidence use (66.2%), slightly higher than in other LMICs. Barriers included suboptimal dissemination (74.5%; OR=2.035, p=0.0008), inadequate resources (70.0%; OR=0.965, p=0.8759) and lack of training (63.7%; OR=1.361, p=0.1806). Integrated findings highlighted convergence on dissemination, resource and training challenges, with divergence in statistical significance between methods.
conclusionsBarriers related to dissemination, resources and training hinder evidence use. Interventions such as digital repositories, guideline development and capacity building, alongside institutionalised frameworks, resource allocation and accountability mechanisms, are essential to strengthen evidence-based health planning in Tanzania.
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.