MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2004363313 · doi:10.5430/jha.v4n4p1

Sustainability of health benefits: Challenges faced by councils health management teams in sustaining comprehensive emergency care services after project phase out. The case of Rufiji, Kilombero and Ulanga districts

2015· article· en· W2004363313 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Josephine Shabani, Iddagiovana Kinyonge, Hadija Kweka, Selemani Mbuyiya, Ahmed Makemba, Godfrey Mbaruku

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSustainabilityTanzaniaPsychological interventionPreparednessBusinessEnvironmental planningHealth facilityReferralEconomic growthEnvironmental healthMedicineGeographyNursingPopulationHealth servicesPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Attention to the sustainability of health intervention programs is increasing not only in developing countries but also in developed countries together with international development agencies. However, consensus on operational definitions of sustainability and determinants of sustainability is still at an early stage. While much progress has been made in the development of successful interventions to promote health, too few interventions achieve long term sustainability. Implementation of EMPOWER project in collaboration with World Lung Foundation (WLF) have increased accessibility of comprehensive emergency obstetric care (CEmOC) by upgrading health centers which were formerly not providing CEmOC services in the three rural districts in Tanzania. Although the WHO standards of CEmOC coverage in the project districts was above the requirement, but accessing these health facilities which provides CEmOC was so difficult due to various factors like geographical (mountains, rivers, seasonal roads), locations of these health facilities (like in one district the it was located at a corner of the district), unreliable referral system and poor functionality of these health facilities especially in terms of emergency preparedness etc. all these factors lead to less/poor accessibility to CEmOC. The upgraded facilities include Kibiti in Rufiji district, Mlimba in Kilombero district, Mwaya and Mtimbira in Ulanga district. Objective: To explore challenges of sustaining upgraded health centers and impact on service utilization after project phase out among rural communities in Tanzania.Methods: Purposeful criterion-based selection of the upgraded health centers (those providing CEmOC) was used in the three districts two years after project phase-out. Secondary data analysis of the quantitative data which was collected during and after the project was done. The following services were assessed; total number of facility deliveries, average number of cesarean section (CS), ante natal care (ANC) attendance, post natal care (PNC) attendance, family planning (FP) use and partograph to monitor the progress of labor. Qualitative data involved key informant interviews of council health management teams (CHMT) and facility in charges.Monitoring data, evaluation and observation of various CEmOC and MNCH related indicators were also done. Four upgraded health centers (Mwaya, Mtimbira, Mlimba and Kibiti) were used as case studies to generate learning reported in this paper.Results: Two years post project, the utilization of most of the services like number of deliveries and CS performed better and were maintained in upgraded health centers which receive regular assistance (Mwaya and Mlimba) than Kibiti health center which received minimal support. Health workers remained committed to sustain the practices promoted in the interventionsdespite of the noted challenges.Conclusions: Benefits of introduced health innovations such as upgrading of health centers for CEmOC can only be sustained if a sustainability strategies are integrated at early stages of project design and carried forward in routine district health planning processes.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,391
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,432

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,322 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Hospital AdministrationMême sujetGlobal Maternal and Child HealthTravaux en français237 207