Browsing by Author "Kayunze, Kim"
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Agricultural growth and poverty reduction in Tanzania 2000- 2010: where has agriculture worked for the poor and what can we learn from this?Mashindano, Oswald; Kayunze, Kim; Maro, Festo; Da Corta, LuciaItem Hidden hunger in rural Tanzania: what can qualitative research tell us about what to do about chronic food insecurity?Shepherd, Andrew; Kayunze, Kim; Vendelin, Simon; Darko, Emily; Evans, AliceItem Public-private partnership supported health facilities and progress towards attainment of universal health coverage in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania(Rwanda Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences) Kanti, Kimario; Kayunze, Kim; Muhanga, MikidadiItem Public-private partnerships in the provision of healthcare services for sustainable development in Tanzania: A systematic literature reviewKimario, Kanti; Kayunze, Kim; Muhanga, MikidadiItem Public-private partnerships in the provision of healthcare services for sustainable development in Tanzania: A systematic literature review(2020-10-10) Kimario, Kanti; Kayunze, Kim; Muhanga, MikidadiThis article reviews the literature on the concept and practice of public-private partnership (PPP). Specifically, the paper reviews theoretical aspects of the concept and practice of PPP and the rationale and potential of PPP in the provision of healthcare services for sustainable development in Tanzania. Using a documentary review research method, different search engines and databases were used in information search from peer-reviewed journals, conference papers, among others. The search strategy involved keywords such as 'Tanzanian healthcare', 'healthcare', 'health insurance', 'public-private partnerships', 'sustainable healthcare provision' and 'sustainable development goals'.The literature search identified a total of 1,600 articles associated with a set of specific search terms. Only fifty (50) studies met the final criteria for review. Articles included were those published from the year 2000 to the present. PPPs are potentially essential tools to increase the delivery of public goods and services because the private sector is capable of complementing resources from the government. Private sector investors can substantially participate in the achievement of SDGs by complementing the available public physical and non-physical resources such as finances, expertise, health sector workforce, and readiness for risk-taking. PPP in the health sector needs to be promoted because sustainable development needs a healthy population, which needs access to essential healthcare services to live healthilyItem Socio-economic impact of foot and mouth disease in wildlife- livestock interface and non-interface of Tanzania(2015) Mdetele, Daniel; Seth, Misago; Kayunze, Kim; Kasanga, ChristopherFoot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) is still one of the major trans-boundary animal diseases (TADs) in Tanzania. The disease is an obstacle to development of the livestock sector because it adversely affect livestock production and trade of animals and animal products. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Serengeti ecosystem (Wildlife- livestock Interface) and in the Central part of Tanzania (Non-interface) with the aim of assessing the social and economic impacts of FMD among livestock keepers in the two ecosystems. Forty households were selected, 10 from each district and to each household, a structured questionnaire was administered. The results showed that, the social impacts due to, FMD outbreaks include food insecurity (85.0%), failure to meet education costs (90.0%) and medical costs (77.5%). The observed economic impacts of FMD were losses associated with treatment costs (87.5%), milk productivity (85.0%), draught power (80.0%), livestock market loss (67.5), lower weight gain (60.0%), lower fertility (37.5%), abortion (35.0%), death of animals (25.0%) and vaccine supply cost (2.5%). Statistically, there were no significant differences in observed impacts of FMD among livestock keepers from wildlife-livestock interface and those from the non-interface. The study found no significant difference in opinion among livestock keepers from wildlife-livestock interface and non-interface areas as well as among study districts on foot-and mouth-disease impacts. Higher percentages in case responses on social impacts and economic losses indicated magnitude of the problem and feelings of livestock keepers about FMD. However, lower percentage in case response on vaccine supply cost indicated that there is no control of FMD by vaccination.