15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploring perceptions, barriers, and enablers for delivery of primary ear and hearing care by community health workers: a photovoice study in Mukono District, Uganda

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Background

          Hearing loss is a prevalent but neglected disease, especially in low- or middle-income countries. The role of Community Health Workers (CHWs) to deliver primary ear and hearing care has been explored in several studies from a technical standpoint, but understanding perceptions, barriers, and enablers of such an approach from the perspective of CHWs themselves through a health equity lens has been less well documented.

          Methods

          This qualitative study used photovoice to explore the views and experiences of CHWs in the Seeta Nazigo Parish of Mukono District in the delivery of ear and hearing care in the community. CHWs were trained in ear and hearing care, and provided with digital cameras to capture photographs related to their work in the community over the following 3 months. Individual interviews regarding the photographs were held at the end of each month, in addition to one focus group discussion. A community workshop was convened at the end of the study to display the photos. Thematic analysis of photographs was conducted using Braune and Clarkes six-step framework. We also used the data to explore potential roles for key stakeholders in primary ear and hearing care, and how photovoice may facilitate their engagement.

          Results

          13 CHWs participated in the study. Several themes were generated from analysis. CHWs perceived a high burden of ear and hearing disorders in their community and recognised the role they could play in tackling that burden. Potential barriers identified included a lack of equipment, training, and supervision of CHWs; logistical, financial, or psychological barriers to community participation; and the widespread use of traditional medicine. CHWs identified roles for the government and NGO bodies to enable and support delivery of ear and hearing care in the community. The community workshop was a useful method to engage key stakeholders in this topic.

          Conclusions

          Photovoice is a powerful method to capture issues affecting CHWs. Here it was used to identify a number of perceptions, barriers and enablers to the delivery of ear and hearing care. Our results may inform future strategy in the field of ear and hearing care, and the potential use of photovoice to enact sociocultural change.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Photovoice: a participatory action research strategy applied to women's health.

          Photovoice is a participatory action research strategy that may offer unique contributions to women's health. It is a process by which people can identify, represent, and enhance their community through a specific photographic technique. Photovoice has three main goals: to enable people (1) to record and reflect their community's strengths and concerns, (2) to promote critical dialogue and knowledge about personal and community issues through large and small group discussion of their photographs, and (3) to reach policymakers. This report gives an overview of the origins, key concepts, methods, and uses of photovoice as a strategy to enhance women's health.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            What do we know about community-based health worker programs? A systematic review of existing reviews on community health workers

            Objective To synthesize current understanding of how community-based health worker (CHW) programs can best be designed and operated in health systems. Methods We searched 11 databases for review articles published between 1 January 2005 and 15 June 2017. Review articles on CHWs, defined as non-professional paid or volunteer health workers based in communities, with less than 2 years of training, were included. We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews according to AMSTAR criteria, and we report our findings based on PRISMA standards. Findings We identified 122 reviews (75 systematic reviews, of which 34 are meta-analyses, and 47 non-systematic reviews). Eighty-three of the included reviews were from low- and middle-income countries, 29 were from high-income countries, and 10 were global. CHW programs included in these reviews are diverse in interventions provided, selection and training of CHWs, supervision, remuneration, and integration into the health system. Features that enable positive CHW program outcomes include community embeddedness (whereby community members have a sense of ownership of the program and positive relationships with the CHW), supportive supervision, continuous education, and adequate logistical support and supplies. Effective integration of CHW programs into health systems can bolster program sustainability and credibility, clarify CHW roles, and foster collaboration between CHWs and higher-level health system actors. We found gaps in the review evidence, including on the rights and needs of CHWs, on effective approaches to training and supervision, on CHWs as community change agents, and on the influence of health system decentralization, social accountability, and governance. Conclusion Evidence concerning CHW program effectiveness can help policymakers identify a range of options to consider. However, this evidence needs to be contextualized and adapted in different contexts to inform policy and practice. Advancing the evidence base with context-specific elements will be vital to helping these programs achieve their full potential. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12960-018-0304-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              How equitable are community health worker programmes and which programme features influence equity of community health worker services? A systematic review

              Background Community health workers (CHWs) are uniquely placed to link communities with the health system, playing a role in improving the reach of health systems and bringing health services closer to hard-to-reach and marginalised groups. A systematic review was conducted to determine the extent of equity of CHW programmes and to identify intervention design factors which influence equity of health outcomes. Methods In accordance with our published protocol, we systematically searched eight databases from 2004 to 2014 for quantitative and qualitative studies which assessed access, utilisation, quality or community empowerment following introduction of a CHW programme according to equity stratifiers (place of residence, gender, socio-economic position and disability). Thirty four papers met inclusion criteria. A thematic framework was applied and data extracted and managed, prior to charting and thematic analysis. Results To our knowledge this is the first systematic review that describes the extent of equity within CHW programmes and identifies CHW intervention design features which influence equity. CHW programmes were found to promote equity of access and utilisation for community health by reducing inequities relating to place of residence, gender, education and socio-economic position. CHWs can also contribute towards more equitable uptake of referrals at health facility level. There was no clear evidence for equitable quality of services provided by CHWs and limited information regarding the role of the CHW in generating community empowerment to respond to social determinants of health. Factors promoting greater equity of CHW services include recruitment of most poor community members as CHWs, close proximity of services to households, pre-existing social relationship with CHW, provision of home-based services, free service delivery, targeting of poor households, strengthened referral to facility, sensitisation and mobilisation of community. However, if CHW programmes are not well planned some of the barriers faced by clients at health facility level can replicate at community level. Conclusions CHWs promote equitable access to health promotion, disease prevention and use of curative services at household level. However, care must be taken by policymakers and implementers to take into account factors which can influence the equity of services during planning and implementation of CHW programmes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3043-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                james.odonovan@seh.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                Int J Equity Health
                Int J Equity Health
                International Journal for Equity in Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1475-9276
                7 May 2020
                7 May 2020
                2020
                : 19
                : 62
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4991.5, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, Department of Education, , The University of Oxford, ; Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PS UK
                [2 ]Division of Research and Health Equity, Omni Med Uganda, Makata, Mukono District, Mukono, Uganda
                [3 ]GRID grid.410725.5, Department of ENT, , Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, ; Brighton, UK
                Article
                1158
                10.1186/s12939-020-01158-8
                7203865
                32381090
                361da67a-c673-48e3-b5ee-5d321dc74635
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 13 November 2019
                : 9 March 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012094, Royal Photographic Society;
                Award ID: Peter Hansell Scholarship
                Funded by: British Medical Assosciation
                Award ID: BMA Charitable Arm Grant
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000269, Economic and Social Research Council;
                Award ID: ES/P000649/1
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Health & Social care
                hearing loss,ear disease,community health workers,photovoice,participatory visual methods

                Comments

                Comment on this article