See the published version of this preprint at BMC Health Services Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Margarate Nzala Munakampe
University of Zambia, School of Public Health
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9279-241X
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Community dialogues have been used in participatory approaches in various health prevention and awareness programs, including family planning interventions, to increase understanding and alignment of particular issues from different peoples’ perspectives. The main objective of this paper is to document the feasibility of a community dialogue approach, which aimed to promote dialogue between healthcare providers and community members. The feasibility testing was part of formative-phase research needed to design an intervention, with the ultimate goal of increasing the uptake of family planning and contraception. The community dialogue intervention generated discussions on key approaches to improve family planning and contraception provision and uptake.
Methods: Key stages of the community dialogue were undertaken, with representation from healthcare providers and community members. Participants included frontline and managerial health care providers, community health workers, family planning and contraception users, the youth, other stakeholders from the education sector, and civil society. How the dialogue was implemented (operational feasibility) as well as the cultural feasibility of the community dialogue content was evaluated through participant observations during the dialogue, using a standardised feasibility testing tick-list, and through focus group discussions with the stakeholders who participated in the community dialogue.
Results: Overall, 21 of the 30 invited participants attended the meeting- 70 per cent attendance. The approach facilitated discussions on how quality care could be achieved in family planning and contraception provision, guided by the ground rules that were agreed upon by the different stakeholders. A need for more time for the discussion was noted. Participants also noted the need for more balanced representation from adolescents as well as other family planning stakeholders, such as community members, especially in comparison to healthcare providers. Some participants were not comfortable with the language used. Young people felt older participants used complicated terminologies while community members felt the health care providers outnumbered them, in terms of representation.
Conclusion: Generally, the community dialogue was well received by the community members and the healthcare providers, as was observed from the sentiments expressed by both categories. Some key considerations for refining the approach included soliciting maximum participation from otherwise marginalized groups like the youth would provide stronger representation.
Keywords
family planning, participation, contraception, community, Zambia
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Version 3
Posted 20 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 27 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 16 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 15 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 15 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 01 Jul, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 01 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 25 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 11 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 06 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 05 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 04 May, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 12 Apr, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 12 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Mar, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Health Services Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Margarate Nzala Munakampe
University of Zambia, School of Public Health
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9279-241X
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Version 3
Posted 20 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 27 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 16 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 15 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 15 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 01 Jul, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 01 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 25 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 11 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 06 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 05 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 04 May, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 12 Apr, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 12 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Mar, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Background: Community dialogues have been used in participatory approaches in various health prevention and awareness programs, including family planning interventions, to increase understanding and alignment of particular issues from different peoples’ perspectives. The main objective of this paper is to document the feasibility of a community dialogue approach, which aimed to promote dialogue between healthcare providers and community members. The feasibility testing was part of formative-phase research needed to design an intervention, with the ultimate goal of increasing the uptake of family planning and contraception. The community dialogue intervention generated discussions on key approaches to improve family planning and contraception provision and uptake.
Methods: Key stages of the community dialogue were undertaken, with representation from healthcare providers and community members. Participants included frontline and managerial health care providers, community health workers, family planning and contraception users, the youth, other stakeholders from the education sector, and civil society. How the dialogue was implemented (operational feasibility) as well as the cultural feasibility of the community dialogue content was evaluated through participant observations during the dialogue, using a standardised feasibility testing tick-list, and through focus group discussions with the stakeholders who participated in the community dialogue.
Results: Overall, 21 of the 30 invited participants attended the meeting- 70 per cent attendance. The approach facilitated discussions on how quality care could be achieved in family planning and contraception provision, guided by the ground rules that were agreed upon by the different stakeholders. A need for more time for the discussion was noted. Participants also noted the need for more balanced representation from adolescents as well as other family planning stakeholders, such as community members, especially in comparison to healthcare providers. Some participants were not comfortable with the language used. Young people felt older participants used complicated terminologies while community members felt the health care providers outnumbered them, in terms of representation.
Conclusion: Generally, the community dialogue was well received by the community members and the healthcare providers, as was observed from the sentiments expressed by both categories. Some key considerations for refining the approach included soliciting maximum participation from otherwise marginalized groups like the youth would provide stronger representation.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...