Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 24;83(1):193.
doi: 10.1186/s13690-025-01672-7.

The effects of decentralisation on patient and service outcomes: a case of the 2018 decentralisation of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Zambia

Tulani Francis L Matenga  1 , Malizgani Paul Chavula  2   3 , Joseph Mumba Zulu  1   4 , Adam Silumbwe  4 , Patricia Maritim  4   5 , Margarate N Munakampe  4   5 , Batuli Habib  1 , Namakando Liusha  6 , Jeremiah Banda  7 , Ntazana N Sinyangwe  8 , Chris Mweemba  4 , Angel Mubanga  9 , Patrick Kaonga  7 , Mwiche Musukuma  7 , Henry Phiri  9 , Hikabasa Halwiindi  10
Affiliations

The effects of decentralisation on patient and service outcomes: a case of the 2018 decentralisation of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Zambia

Tulani Francis L Matenga et al. Arch Public Health. .

Abstract

Introduction: The Zambian government decentralised tuberculosis control programs by transferring responsibility for the care and treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) patients from a two-national hospital model to provincial hospitals and other lower-level healthcare structures. Limited evidence exists on the effects of decentralisation on the quality of TB care provided through public sector decentralisation. In this paper, we explored the impact of decentralising MDR-TB on patient and service outcomes.

Methods: This study used a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data were collected through a survey of 244 MDR-TB patients, while qualitative data was collected through interviews with TB coordinators, healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers. Participants were drawn from health facilities and the Ministry of Health. Quantitative data was analysed in STATA version 16.0, while thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data.

Results: Decentralisation has improved patient care and management by increasing access to essential commodities such as medication and diagnostic testing. It has led to more equitable distribution of MDR-TB healthcare services and resources across different population groups, regardless of social, economic, or demographic factors. Furthermore, the quality of life for MDR-TB patients has improved, with better adherence to medication resulting from increased family support. Due to decentralisation, tailored community and patient-centred services have been integrated resulting in reduced congestion at facilities. The study also identified challenges, including heavy workload for healthcare staff, fragmented coordination of supervisory responsibilities, and confusion over roles in patient management, which negatively impacted the decentralisation process.

Conclusion: The decentralisation of MDR TB services offers significant benefits but is not a guaranteed solution, as poor planning or implementation can lead to challenges in service delivery.

Keywords: Decentralisation; Health services; Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; Patient care; Zambia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethical clearance for this study was sought from the University of Zambia Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (UNZABREC), Reference number 3003–2022. Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Zambia National Health Research Authority and the Ministry of Health. All participants were given informed consent forms, which were read aloud to them and thoroughly explained before they were signed. Participants were informed about the study's goals, procedures, risks, benefits, and their rights as participants. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Abimbola S, Baatiema l, Bigdeli M. The impacts of decentralisation on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: a realist synthesis of the evidence. Health Policy Plan. 2019a;34:605–617. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abimbola S, Baatiema L, Bigdeli M. The impacts of decentralisation on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: a realist synthesis of the evidence. Health Policy Plan. 2019;34:605–17. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bolton P, Farrell J. Decentralisation, Duplication, and Delay. J Polit Econ. 1990;98:803–26.
    1. Bossert T, Chitah MB, Bowser D. Decentralisation in Zambia: resource allocation and district performance. Health Policy Plan. 2003;18:357–69. - PubMed
    1. Brust JCM, Shah NS, Scott M, Krisda, Chaiyachati, Lygizos M, Merwe TVD, Sheila, Bamber, Radebe Z, Loveday M, Moll AP, Margot B, Lalloo UG, Friedland GH, Néel R, Gandhi 2012. Integrated, home-based treatment for MDR-TB and HIV in rural South Africa: an alternate model of care. The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, 16 8, 998–1004. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources