Authors : Carol Kasonde

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/y55bjf8b

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/4jxv5t85

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25aug1373

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Tuberculosis (TB) is a major global public health concern, especially in impoverished nations like Zambia. This study assessed tuberculosis response actions in Kalingalinga, focussing on planning and coordination, resource allocation, monitoring and evaluation, and barrier-reduction strategies. Using a mixed-methods study methodology, data were collected from 330 respondents using structured questionnaires and interviews, resulting in an 86% response rate from the original sample of 384 participants. TB health outcomes were significantly associated with planning, resource allocation, monitoring, and barrier mitigation methods (p < 0.05). Variations in TB response tactics significantly affected program efficiency, intervention efficacy, and stakeholder engagement (p < 0.01). The study highlighted stakeholder participation, financial restrictions, and stigma-related hurdles as significant determinants of TB intervention success. It was so determined that in order to improve tuberculosis prevention and treatment outcomes, the study recommends incorporating multi-sectoral coordination models, enhancing funding mechanisms, strengthening monitoring systems, and expanding stigma reduction programs. The implications extend beyond Kalingalinga, providing data-driven insights to legislators, public health experts, and researchers seeking to improve tuberculosis preventive strategies. Future research should investigate the impact of emerging technology and multi-sectoral governance methods on TB response sustainability in similar scenarios.

Keywords : Tuberculosis Response, Public Health Interventions, Stakeholder Engagement, Project Management, TB Control Strategies.

References :

1. Abyad, R. (2021) ‘The Role of Project Management in Public health’, 19(5), pp. 87–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5742/MEWFM.2021.94054.
2. Appia, A. et al. (no date) ‘WHO Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Assessing tuberculosis revalence through population-based surveys . ( NLM Classification : WF 300 )’.
3. Becker, M.H. (1974) 'The health belief model and personal health behavior', Health Education Monographs, 2, pp. 324-508.
4. Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Creswell, J.W. (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
6. Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2017) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
7. Eze, P. et al. (2024) 'Epidemic preparedness and response capacity against infectious disease outbreaks in 186 countries, 2018–2022', BMC Infectious Diseases, 24, p. 1258.
8. Field, A. (2013) Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications.
9. Israel, M. and Hay, I. (2006) Research Ethics for Social Scientists: Between Ethical Conduct and Regulatory Compliance. London: Sage Publications.
10. Ministry of Health (2023) National Tuberculosis Control Program Annual Report. Lusaka: Ministry of Health.
11. Patton, M.Q. (2015) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
12. Project Management Institute (PMI) (2021) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 7th ed. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
13. Article, R. (2020) ‘Project Management in Public Health : A Systematic Literature Review on Success Criteria and Factors’. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1159/000509531.
14. Banach, D.B. et al. (2017) ‘Outbreak Response and Incident Management : SHEA Guidance and Resources for Healthcare Epidemiologists in United States Acute-Care Hospitals’, 38(12). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2017.212.
15. Ezenwaka, U., Mbachu, C. and Onwujekwe, O. (2025) ‘A scoping review of the roles of stakeholders and coordination mechanisms for enhanced multi ‑ sectoral and multi ‑ level interventions in COVID ‑ 19 response in Nigeria’, Health Research Policy and Systems [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01276-7.
16. Kwon, S.Y. et al. (2023) ‘Utility and Evaluation of Applied Project Management Processes Within a Large Multicountry Health Systems Development Project Conducted During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ( COVID-19 ) Pandemic’, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 77, pp. 543–548. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciad549.
17. Multisectoral preparedness coordination framework (no date).
18. Project, B.E., Ershadi, M.J. and Edrisabadi, R. (2019) ‘Strategic Alignment of Project Management with Health , Safety and Environmental Management’, (November). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-03-2019-0023.
19. Santos, C., Santos, V. and Tavares, A. (2014) ‘Project Management success in health – the need of additional research in public health projects’, 16, pp. 1080–1085. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2014.10.122.
20. Santos, C. et al. (2020) 'Project management in public health: a systematic literature review on success criteria and factors', Portuguese Journal of Public Health, 38(1), pp. 37-48.
21. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2010) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Van Teijlingen, E. and Hundley, V. (2001) 'The importance of pilot studies', Social Research Update, 35(1), pp. 1-4.
22. World Health Organization (WHO) (2022) Global Tuberculosis Report 2022. Geneva: World Health Organization.
23. Yuan, P. et al. (2024) 'Scenario-based assessment of emergency management of urban infectious disease outbreaks', Frontiers in Public Health, 12, p. 1368154.