The Dilemmas and Opportunities of Co-Creating Health Interventions to Fit Local Contexts: An Ethnographic Study on the Adaptation of Clinical Guidelines in Tanzania

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Haika Osaki, Morten Skovdal, Jane Brandt Sørensen, Nanna Maaløe, Natasha Housseine, Brenda Sequeira Dmello, Columba Mbekenga
{"title":"The Dilemmas and Opportunities of Co-Creating Health Interventions to Fit Local Contexts: An Ethnographic Study on the Adaptation of Clinical Guidelines in Tanzania","authors":"Haika Osaki,&nbsp;Morten Skovdal,&nbsp;Jane Brandt Sørensen,&nbsp;Nanna Maaløe,&nbsp;Natasha Housseine,&nbsp;Brenda Sequeira Dmello,&nbsp;Columba Mbekenga","doi":"10.1111/hex.70073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Healthcare providers' role in co-creating health interventions and implementation strategies has evolved significantly, and yet, there is little documentation of this from low-resource settings. This study aims to share the dilemmas of engaging healthcare providers in co-creating locally adapted clinical guidelines for maternity facilities in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and strategies used to address them.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An ethnographic study explored the co-creation of locally adapted clinical guidelines for childbirth care within five maternity facilities in Dar es Salaam. Participant observations were conducted during 11 co-creation workshops. Six in-depth interviews explored participant experiences. Data were analyzed using Attride-Stirling's thematic network analysis framework.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The analysis revealed four themes representing dilemmas in the co-creation process and strategies to improve co-creation: (i) navigating diverse contexts: adapting a single set of guidelines to various, diverse facilities was challenging; this was addressed through engaging in dialogue and flexibility while adjusting care practices. (ii) Competing knowledge systems and sources: differing knowledge sources between researchers and healthcare providers challenged discussions on recommended practices. However, validating scientific recommendations with practical care experience in this context helped bridge this gap. (iii) Fostering meaningful participation: participation was time-consuming for some. However, early stakeholder engagement and facility-led participant selection facilitated the meaningful involvement of healthcare providers. (iv) Power imbalances: power dynamics influenced the co-creation process; involving stakeholders in planning and co-facilitating workshops helped mitigate these imbalances and encourage more equal participation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Navigating contextual variation, differences in knowledge systems, meaningful participation and power dynamics were key challenges in the co-creation process. However, reflexivity, open and honest dialogue with stakeholders and early engagement enhanced the co-creation process. Co-creating locally adapted clinical guidelines with frontline healthcare workers and scientific experts is essential for feasibility and safety. Further research is needed to explore context specificity, decision-making and the efficacy of co-creation in low-resource settings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>Healthcare providers and health managers from five maternity facilities who participated in the co-creation process were actively involved in this study by providing their consent to be interviewed about their experiences of participation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Clinical Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>This study is a substudy within the PartoMa project. PartoMa is a registered clinical trial with the trial registration number NCT04685668. PartoMa's date of initial trial registration is 28 December 2020.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11500208/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70073","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Healthcare providers' role in co-creating health interventions and implementation strategies has evolved significantly, and yet, there is little documentation of this from low-resource settings. This study aims to share the dilemmas of engaging healthcare providers in co-creating locally adapted clinical guidelines for maternity facilities in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and strategies used to address them.

Methods

An ethnographic study explored the co-creation of locally adapted clinical guidelines for childbirth care within five maternity facilities in Dar es Salaam. Participant observations were conducted during 11 co-creation workshops. Six in-depth interviews explored participant experiences. Data were analyzed using Attride-Stirling's thematic network analysis framework.

Results

The analysis revealed four themes representing dilemmas in the co-creation process and strategies to improve co-creation: (i) navigating diverse contexts: adapting a single set of guidelines to various, diverse facilities was challenging; this was addressed through engaging in dialogue and flexibility while adjusting care practices. (ii) Competing knowledge systems and sources: differing knowledge sources between researchers and healthcare providers challenged discussions on recommended practices. However, validating scientific recommendations with practical care experience in this context helped bridge this gap. (iii) Fostering meaningful participation: participation was time-consuming for some. However, early stakeholder engagement and facility-led participant selection facilitated the meaningful involvement of healthcare providers. (iv) Power imbalances: power dynamics influenced the co-creation process; involving stakeholders in planning and co-facilitating workshops helped mitigate these imbalances and encourage more equal participation.

Conclusion

Navigating contextual variation, differences in knowledge systems, meaningful participation and power dynamics were key challenges in the co-creation process. However, reflexivity, open and honest dialogue with stakeholders and early engagement enhanced the co-creation process. Co-creating locally adapted clinical guidelines with frontline healthcare workers and scientific experts is essential for feasibility and safety. Further research is needed to explore context specificity, decision-making and the efficacy of co-creation in low-resource settings.

Patient or Public Contribution

Healthcare providers and health managers from five maternity facilities who participated in the co-creation process were actively involved in this study by providing their consent to be interviewed about their experiences of participation.

Clinical Trial Registration

This study is a substudy within the PartoMa project. PartoMa is a registered clinical trial with the trial registration number NCT04685668. PartoMa's date of initial trial registration is 28 December 2020.

Abstract Image

共同创造卫生干预措施以适应当地环境的困境与机遇:坦桑尼亚临床指南改编的人种学研究》。
导言:医疗服务提供者在共同制定医疗干预措施和实施策略方面的作用已经有了很大的发展,但在资源匮乏的环境中,这方面的文献却很少。本研究旨在分享坦桑尼亚达累斯萨拉姆市的医疗服务提供者在共同创建适合当地情况的产科临床指南过程中遇到的困境,以及解决这些困境的策略:一项人种学研究探讨了在达累斯萨拉姆的五家妇产机构中共同创建适应当地情况的分娩护理临床指南的情况。在 11 次共同创建研讨会期间对参与者进行了观察。六次深入访谈探讨了参与者的经验。采用 Attride-Stirling 的主题网络分析框架对数据进行了分析:分析揭示了四个主题,分别代表了共同创造过程中的困境和改进共同创造的策略:(i) 在不同的环境中游刃有余:将一套单一的指导方针适用于各种不同的设施具有挑战性;在调整护理实践的同时,通过参与对话和灵活性来解决这一问题。(ii) 相互竞争的知识体系和来源:研究人员和医疗服务提供者之间不同的知识 来源对有关推荐做法的讨论提出了挑战。然而,在这种情况下,以实际护理经验验证科学建议有助于弥合这一差距。(iii) 促进有意义的参与:对一些人来说,参与很费时间。然而,利益相关者的早期参与和由医疗机构主导的参与者选择促进了医疗服务提供者的有意义参与。(iv) 权力失衡:权力动态影响了共同创造过程;让利益相关者参与规划和共同主持研讨会有助于缓解这些失衡,鼓励更平等的参与:结论:在共同创造过程中,应对环境变化、知识体系差异、有意义的参与和权力动态是主要挑战。然而,反思性、与利益相关者进行开诚布公的对话以及早期参与都能促进共创过程。与一线医护人员和科学专家共同创建适应当地情况的临床指南对于可行性和安全性至关重要。需要进一步开展研究,探讨在低资源环境下共同创建的具体情况、决策和功效:患者或公众的贡献:参与共同创造过程的五家妇产机构的医护人员和卫生管理人员积极参与了本研究,他们同意就参与过程中的体验接受访谈:本研究是 PartoMa 项目的子研究。PartoMa 是一项注册临床试验,试验注册号为 NCT04685668。PartoMa 的初始试验注册日期为 2020 年 12 月 28 日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信