Acceptability of the Direct Health Facility Financing (DHFF) initiative in Tanzania: A mixed methods process evaluation of the moderating factors.

Despite wide agreement that stakeholder acceptability plays a critical role in an intervention's effectiveness, gaps remain on understanding acceptability of complex health financing interventions. We aimed to understand the moderators of acceptability of the Direct Health Facility Financing (DHFF) initiative across primary health facilities in Tanzania. Employing a mixed methods approach and guided by the theoretical framework for acceptability (TFA), we collected data from implementers and their supervisors using a structured questionnaire and semi-structured interview guides. We analysed data using a chi square test, logistic regression, and thematic analysis. We recruited 238 participants, of whom 71% were females and 54% were below 37 years old. Acceptability was found to be 63% and received high rating in qualitative interviews. Moderators of acceptability included sex (AOR = 1.93, p = 006), work experience (AOR = 3.47, p = 0.001), knowledge (13.8, p = 0.00), supportive work environment (AOR = 2.28, p = 0.019), and capability to implement the programme (AOR = 0.12, p = 0.00). Moderators reported in qualitative interviews related to individual and contextual factors. This study suggests that the DHFF initiative is acceptable and influenced by factors operating at the individual level and beyond. Addressing moderators of acceptability as programs are designed and implemented is the holy grail of acceptability of complex interventions.

Development and content validation of the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool: A quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Recent efforts to increase access to safe and high-quality surgical care in low- and middle-income countries have proven successful. However, multiple facilities implementing the same safety and quality improvement interventions may not all achieve successful outcomes. This heterogeneity could be explained, in part, by pre-intervention organizational characteristics and lack of readiness of surgical facilities. In this study, we describe the process of developing and content validating the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The new tool was developed in two stages. First, qualitative results from a Safe Surgery 2020 intervention were combined with findings from a literature review of organizational readiness and change. Second, through iterative discussions and expert review, the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool was content validated. RESULTS: The Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool includes 14 domains and 56 items measuring the readiness of surgical facilities in low- and middle-income countries to implement surgical safety and quality improvement interventions. This multi-dimensional and multi-level tool offers insights into facility members' beliefs and attitudes at the individual, team, and facility levels. A panel review affirmed the content validity of the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool. CONCLUSION: The Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool is a theory- and evidence-based tool that can be used by change agents and facility leaders in low- and middle-income countries to assess the baseline readiness of surgical facilities to implement surgical safety and quality improvement interventions. Next steps include assessing the reliability and validity of the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool, likely resulting in refinements.