Decentralizing EPI services and prospects for increasing coverage: the case of Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary health Care (PHC) strategies were adopted widely in 1978 after the Alma Ata declaration to improve accessibility to health services and the health of the people. Of the strategies of PHC was the decentralization of health services to lower levels in order to enhance participation and responsiveness of the health system to local problems. While PHC was being promoted vertical programmes such as the expanded programme on immunization (EPI) were also being promoted and achieved substantial benefits. However, almost 25 years later many countries have not been able to achieve these health goals. This study addressed the question: Can we make the process of health care decentralization more likely to support health system and EPI goals? This study analysed the experience of EPI decentralization at national, regional and district levels. Several stakeholders were identified who were supportive and others who were non-supportive of the process. Community support to EPI measured by using willingness to pay (WTP) for kerosene (to keep vaccines cool) was low. It was significantly (p < 0.05) associated with whether providers in the nearest health facility properly attended the target population and whether the providers in the facility were available when needed. There was a substantial stakeholder support and opposition to the process of decentralization at the district level. Community support was not high possibly due to the perceived non-availability of the service providers and their lack of awareness of the population they serve. It was proposed that reforms should give priority to the involvement of communities and peripheral health facility providers in the process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".