9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation and fidelity of a participatory learning and action cycle intervention to prevent and control type 2 diabetes in rural Bangladesh

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          There is an urgent need to address the growing type 2 diabetes disease burden. 20–30% of adults in rural areas of Bangladesh have intermediate hyperglycaemia and about 10% have diabetes. We report on the implementation and fidelity of a Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) intervention, evaluated through a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial which reduced the incidence of diabetes and intermediate hyperglycaemia in rural Bangladesh. PLA interventions have been effective in addressing population level health problems in low income country contexts, and therefore we sought to use this approach to engage communities to identify and address community barriers to prevention and control of type 2 diabetes.

          Methods

          We used a mixed methods approach collecting quantitative data through field reports and qualitative data through observations and focus group discussions. Through descriptive analysis, we considered fidelity to the participatory approach and implementation plans.

          Results

          One hundred twenty-two groups per month were convened by 16 facilitators and supervised by two coordinators. Groups worked through a four phase PLA cycle of problem identification, planning together, implementation and evaluation to address the risk factors for diabetes – diet, physical activity, smoking and stress. Groups reported a lack of awareness about diabetes prevention and control, the prohibitive cost of care and healthy eating, and gender barriers to exercise for women. Groups set targets to encourage physical activity, kitchen-gardening, cooking with less oil, and reduced tobacco consumption. Anti-tobacco committees operated in 90 groups. One hundred twenty-two groups arranged blood glucose testing and 74 groups organized testing twice. Forty-one women’s groups established funds, and 61 communities committed not to ridicule women exercising. Experienced and committed supervisors enabled fidelity to a participatory methodology. A longer intervention period and capacity building could enable engagement with systems barriers to behaviour change.

          Conclusion

          Our complex intervention was implemented as planned and is likely to be valid in similar contexts given the flexibility of the participatory approach to contextually specific barriers to prevention and control of type 2 diabetes. Fidelity to the participatory approach is key to implementing the intervention and effectively addressing type 2 diabetes in a low-income country.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance

          Process evaluation is an essential part of designing and testing complex interventions. New MRC guidance provides a framework for conducting and reporting process evaluation studies
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs Assessment

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Women's groups practising participatory learning and action to improve maternal and newborn health in low-resource settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

              Maternal and neonatal mortality rates remain high in many low-income and middle-income countries. Different approaches for the improvement of birth outcomes have been used in community-based interventions, with heterogeneous effects on survival. We assessed the effects of women's groups practising participatory learning and action, compared with usual care, on birth outcomes in low-resource settings. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials undertaken in Bangladesh, India, Malawi, and Nepal in which the effects of women's groups practising participatory learning and action were assessed to identify population-level predictors of effect on maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, and stillbirths. We also reviewed the cost-effectiveness of the women's group intervention and estimated its potential effect at scale in Countdown countries. Seven trials (119,428 births) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of all trials showed that exposure to women's groups was associated with a 37% reduction in maternal mortality (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.32-0.94), a 23% reduction in neonatal mortality (0.77, 0.65-0.90), and a 9% non-significant reduction in stillbirths (0.91, 0.79-1.03), with high heterogeneity for maternal (I(2)=58.8%, p=0.024) and neonatal results (I(2)=64.7%, p=0.009). In the meta-regression analyses, the proportion of pregnant women in groups was linearly associated with reduction in both maternal and neonatal mortality (p=0.026 and p=0.011, respectively). A subgroup analysis of the four studies in which at least 30% of pregnant women participated in groups showed a 55% reduction in maternal mortality (0.45, 0.17-0.73) and a 33% reduction in neonatal mortality (0.67, 0.59-0.74). The intervention was cost effective by WHO standards and could save an estimated 283,000 newborn infants and 41,100 mothers per year if implemented in rural areas of 74 Countdown countries. With the participation of at least a third of pregnant women and adequate population coverage, women's groups practising participatory learning and action are a cost-effective strategy to improve maternal and neonatal survival in low-resource settings. Wellcome Trust, Ammalife, and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Birmingham and the Black Country programme. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Joanna.morrison@ucl.ac.uk
                mary05kh@gmail.com
                hannah.jennings.11@ucl.ac.uk
                kudduspcp@dab-bd.org
                tasminpcp@dab-bd.org
                c.king@ucl.ac.uk
                sanjitpcp@dab-bd.org
                naveedahmed225@gmail.com
                h.haghparast-bidgoli@ucl.ac.uk
                cihdcostello@gmail.com
                president@dab-bd.org
                kishwar.azad@googlemail.com , pcp@dab-bd.org
                e.fottrell@ucl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Glob Health Res Policy
                Glob Health Res Policy
                Global Health Research and Policy
                BioMed Central (London )
                2397-0642
                5 July 2019
                5 July 2019
                2019
                : 4
                : 19
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000000121901201, GRID grid.83440.3b, University College London Institute for Global Health, ; London, UK
                [2 ]Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0626, GRID grid.4714.6, Department for Public Health Sciences, , Karolinska Institutet, ; Stockholm, Sweden
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9241-8863
                Article
                110
                10.1186/s41256-019-0110-6
                6610980
                31312722
                326b5b5d-96e9-4846-a792-4b7d8d926e26
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 14 March 2019
                : 18 June 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265, Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: MR/M016501/1
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                process evaluation,diabetes,non-communicable diseases,health promotion,randomised controlled trial

                Comments

                Comment on this article