ArticlePloS one2025
Analysis of the determinants for using health research evidence in health planning in Tanzania: a cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
introductionThe use of health research evidence is essential for informed decision-making and effective health planning. Despite its importance, there is limited understanding of the determinants for the use of such evidence in planning processes, particularly in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) like Tanzania. This study aims to investigate the proportion and determinants that affect the use of health research evidence in health planning in Tanzania. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis quantitative study employed a cross-sectional design. Data on health research evidence and the factors influencing its use were collected using a structured questionnaire from 422 healthcare workers involved in planning within 9 regions of Tanzania from October to December 2023. The association between categorical variables was assessed using a chi-square test, while regression analysis was conducted to identify determinants, both at a 95% confidence level.
resultsThe study revealed that 270 (66.2%) of health planning team members strongly agreed that they use health research evidence during planning. Several key determinants were significantly associated with the level of research evidence utilization. These included limited dissemination of research findings (74.5%), inadequate human and non-human resources (70.0%), and insufficient knowledge and training in research (63.7%). A multivariate regression analysis confirmed significant associations between the determinants and the use of research evidence (p<0.05). Descriptive statistics revealed that over 70% of respondents identified the presence of research coordinators, partnerships with universities, availability of research budgets, and internet access as important factors in their research. Inferential analysis indicated that these factors were statistically significantly associated with the use of health research evidence. In addition, more than half of the participants stated motivational factors, such as the presence of continuous quality improvement initiatives, the availability of short- and long-term training programs, on-the-job training opportunities, and incentives like extra duty allowances, as contributors to the enhanced use of research evidence. Bottom of Form.
conclusionThe study found that planning team members used health research evidence in planning, but several determinants, such as lack of dissemination, resource shortages, and inadequate training, persisted. Interventions should focus on improving dissemination, resources, and training. Future research should explore strategies for enhancing these interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.