Community-structures that facilitate engagement in health research: Ifakara Health Research Institute-Bagamoyo case study.

Q2 Multidisciplinary
AAS Open Research Pub Date : 2022-03-23 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.12688/aasopenres.13187.2
Leah Bategereza, Ally Olotu, Dorcas Kamuya
{"title":"Community-structures that facilitate engagement in health research: Ifakara Health Research Institute-Bagamoyo case study.","authors":"Leah Bategereza, Ally Olotu, Dorcas Kamuya","doi":"10.12688/aasopenres.13187.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Involvement of communities in health research has been at the forefront of ethical conduct of research worldwide. Despite the fact that many scholars have put forward different ways of engaging communities in health research, debates on the forms and goals of engagement, levels of engagement, who should be engaged in the community and how, still persist. At the Ifakara Health Research Institute (IHI) in Bagamoyo, Tanzania, different approaches to engaging with the community in health research have been used over the last decade. Of the approaches that have been used, are the use of community structures including traditional and administrative leaders, which have been periodically engaged, but with little sharing beyond study-level. Therefore, the present research was aimed to describe the nature of community structures that could be engaged in health research at the Ifakara Research Centre, the strength and weakness of working with such community structures, and the impact of the structures on research conducted in the center, including promoting research participation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study based on social science methodological design and a thematic approach for data analysis was employed. Data collection was undertaken in between February 2019 and December 2019. In this study, a total of 25 interviews with 55 respondents in which 19 were In-Depth Interviews (IDIs), and 6 were Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were carried out. The In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) involved Village Executive Officers (VEOs), Hamlet Leaders (HLs), Community Health Workers (CHWs), Principal Investigators (PIs), study coordinators (SCs), research project managers (PMs), and field workers (FWs), while 6 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) involved community respondents who previously participated in IHI research. The FGDs were conducted in 3 villages; two FGDs in each village, one each for men and women. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using framework analysis. Comparative thematic analysis was undertaken as more data was added, creating new themes, until there was no new emerging themes, a point of data saturation. The themes were charted across respondent groups to map patterns of the themes across respondents groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data shows different community structures including the village executive officers, community health workers, hamlet leaders, and community advisory board were involved in engagement activities. Approaches used for engagement as per the findings under this study include community-level public meetings, information giving at household level and at the health facilities, the use of outpatient attendance at hospital/dispensary, the use of Health District Coordinators, the use of some members of village leaders/representatives families through their both informed assent and consent as project or research participants, and the use of routine health care campaigns in the community to create awareness of the particular diseases such as Tuberculosis day (TB day), Malaria day and HIV day. The weaknesses that were reported include inconsistence research feedback, insufficient engagement with participants about specific research projects they are recruited into and false promises by researchers to community stakeholders. Community stakeholders suggested additional ways to engage with the community, these include radio, advertisement, posters, brochures and regular meetings.</p>","PeriodicalId":34179,"journal":{"name":"AAS Open Research","volume":"4 ","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11303950/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAS Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/aasopenres.13187.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Multidisciplinary","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Involvement of communities in health research has been at the forefront of ethical conduct of research worldwide. Despite the fact that many scholars have put forward different ways of engaging communities in health research, debates on the forms and goals of engagement, levels of engagement, who should be engaged in the community and how, still persist. At the Ifakara Health Research Institute (IHI) in Bagamoyo, Tanzania, different approaches to engaging with the community in health research have been used over the last decade. Of the approaches that have been used, are the use of community structures including traditional and administrative leaders, which have been periodically engaged, but with little sharing beyond study-level. Therefore, the present research was aimed to describe the nature of community structures that could be engaged in health research at the Ifakara Research Centre, the strength and weakness of working with such community structures, and the impact of the structures on research conducted in the center, including promoting research participation.

Methods: A qualitative study based on social science methodological design and a thematic approach for data analysis was employed. Data collection was undertaken in between February 2019 and December 2019. In this study, a total of 25 interviews with 55 respondents in which 19 were In-Depth Interviews (IDIs), and 6 were Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were carried out. The In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) involved Village Executive Officers (VEOs), Hamlet Leaders (HLs), Community Health Workers (CHWs), Principal Investigators (PIs), study coordinators (SCs), research project managers (PMs), and field workers (FWs), while 6 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) involved community respondents who previously participated in IHI research. The FGDs were conducted in 3 villages; two FGDs in each village, one each for men and women. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using framework analysis. Comparative thematic analysis was undertaken as more data was added, creating new themes, until there was no new emerging themes, a point of data saturation. The themes were charted across respondent groups to map patterns of the themes across respondents groups.

Results: Data shows different community structures including the village executive officers, community health workers, hamlet leaders, and community advisory board were involved in engagement activities. Approaches used for engagement as per the findings under this study include community-level public meetings, information giving at household level and at the health facilities, the use of outpatient attendance at hospital/dispensary, the use of Health District Coordinators, the use of some members of village leaders/representatives families through their both informed assent and consent as project or research participants, and the use of routine health care campaigns in the community to create awareness of the particular diseases such as Tuberculosis day (TB day), Malaria day and HIV day. The weaknesses that were reported include inconsistence research feedback, insufficient engagement with participants about specific research projects they are recruited into and false promises by researchers to community stakeholders. Community stakeholders suggested additional ways to engage with the community, these include radio, advertisement, posters, brochures and regular meetings.

促进参与健康研究的社区结构:伊法卡拉健康研究所--巴加莫约案例研究。
背景:社区参与卫生研究一直处于世界范围内研究伦理行为的前沿。尽管许多学者提出了让社区参与健康研究的不同方式,但关于参与的形式和目标、参与的水平、谁应该参与社区以及如何参与社区的争论仍然存在。在坦桑尼亚巴加莫约的Ifakara卫生研究所(IHI),在过去十年中使用了不同的方法让社区参与卫生研究。在已使用的方法中,包括传统和行政领导人在内的社区结构的使用是定期参与的,但在研究水平之外几乎没有分享。因此,本研究的目的是描述可在Ifakara研究中心从事保健研究的社区结构的性质,与这些社区结构合作的优势和劣势,以及这些结构对中心进行的研究的影响,包括促进研究参与。方法:采用基于社会科学方法论设计的定性研究,采用专题分析方法进行数据分析。数据收集于2019年2月至2019年12月期间进行。本研究共进行了25次访谈,涉及55名受访者,其中19次为深度访谈(IDIs), 6次为焦点小组讨论(fgd)。深度访谈(IDIs)涉及村行政官员(VEOs)、哈姆雷特领袖(HLs)、社区卫生工作者(CHWs)、主要调查员(pi)、研究协调员(SCs)、研究项目经理(pm)和实地工作者(FWs),而6个焦点小组讨论(fds)涉及以前参与IHI研究的社区受访者。在3个村庄进行了fgd;每个村庄各有两名妇女,男女各一名。访谈录音,转录,并使用框架分析进行分析。随着数据的增加,进行比较主题分析,创造新的主题,直到没有新的主题出现,达到数据饱和的程度。主题在被调查者群体中被绘制成图表,以映射主题在被调查者群体中的模式。结果:数据显示不同的社区结构包括村行政官员、社区卫生工作者、村庄领导和社区咨询委员会参与了参与活动。根据这项研究的结果,用于参与的方法包括社区一级的公开会议、在家庭一级和在保健设施提供信息、利用医院/药房门诊服务、利用保健区协调员、利用一些村领导/代表家庭成员通过其知情同意和同意作为项目或研究参与者。以及在社区开展常规保健运动,提高对特定疾病的认识,如结核病日、疟疾日和艾滋病毒日。报告的弱点包括不一致的研究反馈,与参与者就他们被招募到的具体研究项目的接触不足,以及研究人员对社区利益相关者的虚假承诺。社区利益攸关方提出了与社区互动的其他方式,包括广播、广告、海报、小册子和定期会议。
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
AAS Open Research
AAS Open Research Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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