28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      “We threw away the stones”: a mixed method evaluation of a simple cookstove intervention in Malawi

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          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: Air pollution exposure is responsible for a substantial burden of respiratory disease globally. Household air pollution from cooking using biomass is a major contributor to overall exposure in rural low-income settings. Previous research in Malawi has revealed how precarity and food insecurity shape individuals’ daily experiences, contributing to perceptions of health. Aiming to avoid a mismatch between research intervention and local context, we introduced a simple cookstove intervention in rural Malawi, analysing change in fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) exposures, and community perceptions.

          Methods: Following a period of baseline ethnographic research, we distributed ‘chitetezo mbaula’, locally-made cookstoves, to all households (n=300) in a rural Malawian village. Evaluation incorporated village-wide participant observation and concurrent exposure monitoring using portable PM 2.5 monitors at baseline and follow-up (three months post-intervention). Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Quantitative analysis of exposure data included pre-post intervention comparisons, with datapoints divided into periods of combustion activity (almost exclusively cooking) and non-combustion periods. Findings were integrated at the interpretation stage, using a convergent design mode of synthesis.

          Results: Individual exposure monitoring pre- and post-cookstove intervention involved a sample of 18 participants (15 female; mean age 43). Post-intervention PM 2.5 exposures (median 9.9μg/m 3 [interquartile range: 2.2–46.5]) were not significantly different to pre-intervention (11.8μg/m 3 [3.8–44.4]); p=0.71. On analysis by activity, background exposures were found to be reduced post-intervention (from 8.2μg/m 3 [2.5–22.0] to 4.6μg/m 3 [1.0–12.6]; p=0.01). Stoves were well-liked and widely used by residents as substitutes for previous cooking methods (mainly three-stone fires). Commonly cited benefits related to fuel saving and shorter cooking times.

          Conclusions: The cookstove intervention had no impact on cooking-related PM 2.5 exposures. A significant reduction in background exposures may relate to reduced smouldering emissions. Uptake and continued use of the stoves was high amongst community members, who preferred using the stoves to cooking over open fires.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance

          The UK Medical Research Council’s widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            ggplot2

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

              RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review

              The RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework was conceptualized two decades ago. As one of the most frequently applied implementation frameworks, RE-AIM has now been cited in over 2,800 publications. This paper describes the application and evolution of RE-AIM as well as lessons learned from its use. RE-AIM has been applied most often in public health and health behavior change research, but increasingly in more diverse content areas and within clinical, community, and corporate settings. We discuss challenges of using RE-AIM while encouraging a more pragmatic use of key dimensions rather than comprehensive applications of all elements. Current foci of RE-AIM include increasing the emphasis on cost and adaptations to programs and expanding the use of qualitative methods to understand “how” and “why” results came about. The framework will continue to evolve to focus on contextual and explanatory factors related to RE-AIM outcomes, package RE-AIM for use by non-researchers, and integrate RE-AIM with other pragmatic and reporting frameworks.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: Project Administration
                Role: Investigation
                Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2398-502X
                17 March 2022
                2022
                : 7
                : 52
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK
                [2 ]Malawi-Liverpool Wellcome trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi
                [1 ]Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology and Public Health Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
                Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK
                [1 ]Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
                Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK
                Author notes

                * Joint senior authors

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1944-1677
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2323-3611
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8118-8871
                Article
                10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17544.2
                8933645
                3f788bbc-f072-493f-9a78-9c9a9906ff2c
                Copyright: © 2022 Saleh S et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 March 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust
                Award ID: 203919/Z/16/Z
                This work was supported by Wellcome [108903, <a href=https://doi.org/10.35802/203919>https://doi.org/10.35802/203919</a>].
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Articles

                air pollution,particulate matter,pm2.5,improved stove,intervention,low- and middle-income countries

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log