Explore the vast range of titles available.

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) has been used to address health disparities within several contexts by actively engaging communities. Though dialogues are recognized as a medium by which community members and other actors can make their voices heard through processes that support shared-decision making, power asymmetries often impede the achievement of this objective. Traditionally such relationship asymmetries exist between communities, health workers, and other professionals resulting in the exclusion of communities from decision making in participatory practices and dialogues. This study aimed to explore the experiences in the dialogues between different groups within communities, health workers and local government officials in a CBPR project on immunization in Nigeria. We adapted the framework by Elberse et al. (2011) to structure the possible exclusion mechanisms that could exist in dialogues between the three groups and we set up inclusion strategies to diminish the inequalities as much as possible. This is an exploratory and descriptive case study, using qualitative methods. Data was collected through observation and semi-structured interviews (SSI) with dialogue participants. All 24 participants in the multi-stakeholder dialogues were interviewed. Inclusion strategies involved creating enabling circumstances; influencing behaviour; and influencing use of language. Verbal and circumstantial strategies were of limited value in reducing exclusion. Behavioural inclusion strategies created more awareness of the importance of inclusion; and enabled different community stakeholders to direct their influences towards achieving the collective goals of the collaboration. An important learning is that if evidence is used in the dialogues, even when exclusion of certain individuals occurs, the outcomes could still favour them. A key issue is the difference between participation and representation and the need for more efficient ways of carrying out such interactive processes to ensure that the participation of the vulnerable groups is not merely symbolic. The study makes a case for the use of 'boundary spanners' in this dynamic-these are 'elite' individuals (or community champions) who can be a voice for the minorities and who could have the opportunity to influence decision making. CBPR can enable local governments to develop effective partnerships with health workers and communities to achieve health-related goals even in the presence of asymmetries in relationships. Inclusion strategies in dialogues can improve participation and enable shared decision making, however exclusion of vulnerable groups may still occur. Intra-community dynamics and socio-cultural contexts can drive exclusion and less privileged community members require proper representation to enable their issues to be captured effectively.

Background In 2005, Nigeria adopted the Reaching Every Ward strategy to improve vaccination coverage for children 0–23 months of age. By 2015, Ogun state had full coverage (100%) in 12 of its 20 local government areas, but eight had pockets of unimmunized children, with the highest burden (37%) in Remo North. A participatory action research (PAR) approach was used to facilitate implementation of local solutions to contextual barriers to immunization in Remo North. This article assesses and seeks to explain the outcomes of the PAR implemented in Remo North to understand whether and possibly how it improved immunization utilization. Methods The PAR intervention took place from 2016 to 2017. It involved two (4-month) cycles of dialogue and action between community members, frontline health workers and local government officials in two wards of Remo North, facilitated by the research team. The PAR was assessed using a pre/post-intervention-only design with mixed methods. These included household surveys of caregivers of 215 and 213 children, respectively, 25 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in immunization service delivery and 16 focus group discussions with community members. Data were analysed using the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) vaccine hesitancy framework. Results Collaboration among the three stakeholder groups enabled the development and implementation of solutions to identified problems related to access to and use of immunization services. At endline, assessment by card for children older than 9 months revealed a significant increase in those fully immunized, from 60.7% at baseline to 90.9% ( p  < .05). A significantly greater number of caregivers visited fixed government health facilities for routine immunization at endline (83.2%) than at baseline (54.2%) ( p  < .05). The reasons reported by caregivers for improved utilization of routine immunization services were increased community mobilization activities and improved responsiveness of the health workers. Spillover effects into maternal health services enhanced the use of immunization services by caregivers. Spontaneous scale-up of actions occurred across Remo North due to the involvement of local government officials. Conclusion The PAR approach achieved contextual solutions to problems identified by communities. Collection and integration of evidence into discussions/dialogues with stakeholders can lead to change. Leveraging existing structures and resources enhanced effectiveness.

Abstract To achieve universal health coverage, the scale-up of high impact public health interventions is essential. However, scale-up is challenging and often not successful. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to provide insights into the factors influencing the scale-up of public health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Two databases were searched for studies with a qualitative research component. The GRADE-CERQual approach was applied to assess the confidence in the evidence for each key review finding. A multi-level perspective on transition was applied to ensure a focus on vertical scale-up for sustainability. According to this theory, changes in the way of organizing (structure), doing (practice) and thinking (culture) need to take place to ensure the scale-up of an intervention. Among the most prominent factors influencing scale-up through changes in structure was the availability of financial, human and material resources. Inadequate supply chains were often barriers to scale-up. Advocacy activities positively influenced scale-up, and changes in the policy environment hindered or facilitated scale-up. The most outstanding factors influencing scale-up through changes in practice were the availability of a strategic plan for scale-up and the way in which training and supervision was conducted. Furthermore, collaborations such as community participation and partnerships facilitated scale-up, as well as the availability of research and monitoring and evaluation data. Factors influencing scale-up through a change in culture were less prominent in the literature. While some studies articulated the acceptability of the intervention in a given sociocultural environment, more emphasis was placed on the importance of stakeholders feeling a need for a specific intervention to facilitate its scale-up. All identified factors should be taken into account when scaling up public health interventions in LMICs. The different factors are strongly interlinked, and most of them are related to one crucial first step: the development of a scale-up strategy before scaling up.

Background Social accountability has to be configured according to the context in which it operates. This paper aimed to identify local contextual factors in two health zones in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and discuss their possible influences on shaping, implementing and running social accountability initiatives. Methods Data on local socio-cultural characteristics, the governance context, and socio-economic conditions related to social accountability enabling factors were collected in the two health zones using semi-structured interviews and document reviews, and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results The contexts of the two health zones were similar and characterized by the existence of several community groups, similarly structured and using similar decision-making processes. They were not involved in the health sector’s activities and had no link with the health committee, even though they acknowledged its existence. They were not networked as they focused on their own activities and did not have enough capacity in terms of social mobilization or exerting pressure on public authorities or providers. Women were not perceived as marginalized as they often occupied other positions in the community besides carrying out domestic tasks and participated in community groups. However, they were still subject to the local male dominance culture, which restrains their involvement in decision-making, as they tend to be less educated, unemployed and suffer from a lack of resources or specific skills. The socio-economic context is characterized by subsistence activities and a low employment rate, which limits the community members’ incomes and increases their dependence on external support. The governance context was characterized by imperfect implementation of political decentralization. Community groups advocating community rights are identified as “political” and are not welcomed. The community groups seemed not to be interested in the health center’s information and had no access to media as it is non-existent. Conclusions The local contexts in the two health zones seemed not to be supportive of the operation of social accountability initiatives. However, they offer starting points for social accountability initiatives if better use is made of existing contextual factors, for instance by making community groups work together and improving their capacities in terms of knowledge and information.

Background This paper aims to identify factors that influence the capacity of women to voice their concerns regarding maternal health services at the local level. Methods A secondary analysis was conducted of the data from three studies carried out between 2013 and 2015 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in the context of a WOTRO initiative to improve maternal health services through social accountability mechanisms in the DRC. The data processing and analysis focused on data related to factors that influence the capacity of women to voice their concerns and on the characteristics of women that influence their ability to identify, and address specific problems. Data from 21 interviews and 12 focus group discussions ( n  = 92) were analysed using an inductive content analysis, and those from one household survey ( n  = 517) were summarized. Results The women living in the rural setting were mostly farmers/fisher-women (39.7%) or worked at odd jobs (20.3%). They had not completed secondary school (94.6%). Around one-fifth was younger than 20 years old (21.9%). The majority of women could describe the health service they received but were not able to describe what they should receive as care. They had insufficient knowledge of the health services before their first visit. They were not able to explain the mandate of the health providers. The information they received concerned the types of healthcare they could receive but not the real content of those services, nor their rights and entitlements. They were unaware of their entitlements and rights. They believed that they were laypersons and therefore unable to judge health providers, but when provided with some tools such as a checklist, they reported some abusive and disrespectful treatments. However, community members asserted that the reported actions were not reprehensible acts but actions to encourage a woman and to make her understand the risk of delivery. Conclusions Factors influencing the capacity of women to voice their concerns in DRC rural settings are mainly associated with insufficient knowledge and socio-cultural context. These findings suggest that initiatives to implement social accountability have to address community capacity-building, health providers’ responsiveness and the socio-cultural norms issues.

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) has been used to address health disparities within several contexts by actively engaging communities. Though dialogues are recognized as a medium by which community members and other actors can make their voices heard through processes that support shared-decision making, power asymmetries often impede the achievement of this objective. Traditionally such relationship asymmetries exist between communities, health workers, and other professionals resulting in the exclusion of communities from decision making in participatory practices and dialogues. This study aimed to explore the experiences in the dialogues between different groups within communities, health workers and local government officials in a CBPR project on immunization in Nigeria. We adapted the framework by Elberse et al. (2011) to structure the possible exclusion mechanisms that could exist in dialogues between the three groups and we set up inclusion strategies to diminish the inequalities as much as possible. This is an exploratory and descriptive case study, using qualitative methods. Data was collected through observation and semi-structured interviews (SSI) with dialogue participants. All 24 participants in the multi-stakeholder dialogues were interviewed. Inclusion strategies involved creating enabling circumstances; influencing behaviour; and influencing use of language. Verbal and circumstantial strategies were of limited value in reducing exclusion. Behavioural inclusion strategies created more awareness of the importance of inclusion; and enabled different community stakeholders to direct their influences towards achieving the collective goals of the collaboration. An important learning is that if evidence is used in the dialogues, even when exclusion of certain individuals occurs, the outcomes could still favour them. A key issue is the difference between participation and representation and the need for more efficient ways of carrying out such interactive processes to ensure that the participation of the vulnerable groups is not merely symbolic. The study makes a case for the use of 'boundary spanners' in this dynamic-these are 'elite' individuals (or community champions) who can be a voice for the minorities and who could have the opportunity to influence decision making. CBPR can enable local governments to develop effective partnerships with health workers and communities to achieve health-related goals even in the presence of asymmetries in relationships. Inclusion strategies in dialogues can improve participation and enable shared decision making, however exclusion of vulnerable groups may still occur. Intra-community dynamics and socio-cultural contexts can drive exclusion and less privileged community members require proper representation to enable their issues to be captured effectively.

Background The Democratic Republic of the Congo is one of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with the highest maternal mortality ratio estimated at 846 deaths per 100,000 live births. Innovative strategies such as social accountability are needed to improve both health service delivery and utilization. Indeed, social accountability is a form of citizen engagement defined as the ‘extent and capability of citizens to hold politicians, policy makers and providers accountable and make them responsive to their needs.’ This study explores existing social accountability mechanisms through which women’s concerns are expressed and responded to by health providers in local settings. Methods An exploratory study was conducted in two health zones with purposively sampled respondents including twenty-five women, five men, five health providers, two health zone officers and eleven community stakeholders. Data on women’s voice and oversight and health providers’ responsiveness were collected using semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis. Results In the two health zones, women rarely voiced their concerns and expectations about health services. This reluctance was due to: the absence of procedures to express them, to the lack of knowledge thereof, fear of reprisals, of being misunderstood as well as factors such as age-related power, ethnicity backgrounds, and women’s status. The means most often mentioned by women for expressing their concerns were as individuals rather than as a collective. They did not use them instead; instead they looked to intermediaries, mostly, trusted health providers, community health workers and local leaders. Their perceptions of health providers’ responsiveness varied. For women, there were no mechanisms for oversight in place. Individual discontent with malpractice was not shown to health providers. In contrast, health providers mentioned community health workers, health committee, and community based organizations as formal oversight mechanisms. All respondents recognized the lack of coalition around maternal health despite the many local associations and groups. Conclusions Social accountability is relatively inexistent in the maternal health services in the two health zones. For social accountability to be promoted, efforts need to be made to create its mechanisms and to open the local context settings to dialogue, which appears structurally absent.

In recent years, a range of brief protocolised psychological interventions like Problem Management Plus have been developed. Such \"scalable psychological interventions\" are meant to be delivered by nonspecialists which can greatly increase access to psychological therapies for people affected by adversity, including forced displacement. However, embedding new interventions into mainstream practices is challenging. Novel interventions can remain in the research phase for a long time or stop altogether, which minimises their intended impact and reach. In this conceptual paper we propose a \"system innovation perspective\" on scaling up new psychological interventions for refugees and argue that existing mental health systems often need to change to integrate new interventions in a sustainable way. We present a conceptual framework, which includes ideas on cycles of deepening (learning by doing), broadening (repeating and linking), and scaling up (embedding) and the multilevel and constellation perspective. This framework has been operationalised in our scalability research as part of the STRENGTHS study in which we increase our understanding of the opportunities for scaling up four new psychological interventions in eight countries hosting Syrian refugees, including in Europe (Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) and the Middle East (Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon). Key implications for practice Researchers and practitioners involved in implementing and evaluating scalable psychological interventions such as Problem Management Plus should consider the inclusion of scalability assessments to increase understanding about the potential for integrating such innovations into mainstream services. A system innovation perspective views scaling up as the integration of an innovation into mainstream practices and suggests that mental health systems commonly need to change in order to effectively adopt new interventions, allowing them to reach their desired impact at scale and in a sustainable way. An improved understanding of the scalability of novel psychological interventions, including the potential (systemic) barriers and facilitators for scaling up, will provide essential knowledge for those involved in decision-making, implementation and evaluation of the further scale up of such interventions.

Background Social accountability (SA) comprises a set of mechanisms aiming to, on the one hand, enable users to raise their concerns about the health services provided to them (voice), and to hold health providers (HPs) accountable for actions and decisions related to the health service provision. On the other hand, they aim to facilitate HPs to take into account users’ needs and expectations in providing care. This article describes the development of a SA intervention that aims to improve health services responsiveness in two health zones in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Methods Beneficiaries including men, women, community health workers (CHWs), representatives of the health sector and local authorities were purposively selected and involved in an advisory process using the Dialogue Model in the two health zones: (1) Eight focus group discussions (FGDs) were organized separately during consultation aimed at sharing and discussing results from the situation analysis, and collecting suggestions for improvement, (2) Representatives of participants in previous FGDs were involved in dialogue meetings for prioritizing and integrating suggestions from FGDs, and (3) the integrated suggestions were discussed by research partners and set as intervention components. All the processes were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis. Results Overall there were 121 participants involved in the process, 51 were female. They provided 48 suggestions. Their suggestions were integrated into six intervention components during dialogue meetings: (1) use CHWs and a health committee for collecting and transmitting community concerns about health services, (2) build the capacity of the community in terms of knowledge and information, (3) involve community leaders through dialogue meetings, (4) improve the attitude of HPs towards voice and the management of voice at health facility level, (5) involve the health service supervisors in community participation and; (6) use other existing interventions. These components were then articulated into three intervention components during programming to: create a formal voice system, introduce dialogue meetings improving enforceability and answerability, and enhance the health providers’ responsiveness. Conclusions The use of the Dialogue Model, a participatory process, allowed beneficiaries to be involved with other community stakeholders having different perspectives and types of knowledge in an advisory process and to articulate their suggestions on a combination of SA intervention components, specific for the two health zones contexts.

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) has been used to address health disparities within several contexts by actively engaging communities. Though dialogues are recognized as a medium by which community members and other actors can make their voices heard through processes that support shared-decision making, power asymmetries often impede the achievement of this objective. Traditionally such relationship asymmetries exist between communities, health workers, and other professionals resulting in the exclusion of communities from decision making in participatory practices and dialogues. This study aimed to explore the experiences in the dialogues between different groups within communities, health workers and local government officials in a CBPR project on immunization in Nigeria. We adapted the framework by Elberse et al. (2011) to structure the possible exclusion mechanisms that could exist in dialogues between the three groups and we set up inclusion strategies to diminish the inequalities as much as possible. This is an exploratory and descriptive case study, using qualitative methods. Data was collected through observation and semi-structured interviews (SSI) with dialogue participants. All 24 participants in the multi-stakeholder dialogues were interviewed. Inclusion strategies involved creating enabling circumstances; influencing behaviour; and influencing use of language. Verbal and circumstantial strategies were of limited value in reducing exclusion. Behavioural inclusion strategies created more awareness of the importance of inclusion; and enabled different community stakeholders to direct their influences towards achieving the collective goals of the collaboration. An important learning is that if evidence is used in the dialogues, even when exclusion of certain individuals occurs, the outcomes could still favour them. A key issue is the difference between participation and representation and the need for more efficient ways of carrying out such interactive processes to ensure that the participation of the vulnerable groups is not merely symbolic. The study makes a case for the use of 'boundary spanners' in this dynamic-these are 'elite' individuals (or community champions) who can be a voice for the minorities and who could have the opportunity to influence decision making. CBPR can enable local governments to develop effective partnerships with health workers and communities to achieve health-related goals even in the presence of asymmetries in relationships. Inclusion strategies in dialogues can improve participation and enable shared decision making, however exclusion of vulnerable groups may still occur. Intra-community dynamics and socio-cultural contexts can drive exclusion and less privileged community members require proper representation to enable their issues to be captured effectively.