Search

Issue addressed: Obesity and non‐communicable diseases (NCDs) are largely preventable by understanding the connection between socio‐cultural knowledge, yet intervention effectiveness may hinder changes in lifestyles and behaviours in Indigenous health. This study performed to understand the social and cultural components, which contribute to obesity in rural areas of the Indigenous Fijian. Methods: This study is a Community‐Based Participatory Research (CBPR) project, which engaged community members from a rural iTaukei village in the Fiji Islands. Data collection was carried out through community consultation and semi‐structured interviews. The data were analysed using descriptive thematic analysis. Results: Food intake was associated with socio‐cultural, economic, political and physical environmental factors. Participants reveal previous health promotion programs did not incorporate the cultural values, cultural competence beliefs and traditional ways of rural Indigenous Fijian community. Conclusion: The health care providers and policymakers need to be involved in recognising iTaukei community culture and appreciate traditional methods to promote equitable community participation in decision‐making for health promotion. So what?: Community‐wide lifestyle interventions, conceptual approaches based on communal perceptions of the problem at hand can also be the basis for future research on identifying socio‐cultural factors, for example, the community and family support that can help shape behaviours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Workplace health interventions incorporating qualitative and quantitative components (mixed methods) within a Participatory Action Research approach can increase understanding of contextual issues ensuring realistic interventions which influence health behaviour. Mixed methods research teams, however, face a variety of challenges at the methodological and expertise levels when designing actions and interventions. Addressing these challenges can improve the team's functionality and lead to higher quality health outcomes. In this paper we reflect on the data collection, implementation and data analysis phases of a mixed methods workplace health promotion project and discuss the challenges which arose within our multidisciplinary team.Methods: This project used mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach to address workers' sun safety behaviours in 14 outdoor workplaces in Queensland, Australia, and elucidate why certain measures succeeded (or failed) at the worker and management level. The project integrated qualitative methods such as policy analysis and interviews, with a range of quantitative methods - including worker surveys, ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure measurement, and implementation cost analyses.Results: The research team found the integration of qualitative and quantitative analyses within the Participatory Action Research process to be challenging and a cause of tensions. This had a negative impact on the data analysis process and reporting of results, and the complexity of qualitative analysis was not truly understood by the quantitative team. Once all researchers recognised qualitative and quantitative data would be equally beneficial to the Participatory Action Research process, methodological bias was overcome to a degree to which the team could work cooperatively.Conclusions: Mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach may allow a research team to discuss, reflect and learn from each other, resulting in broadened perspectives beyond the scope of any single research methodology. However, cohesive and supportive teams take constant work and adjustment under this approach, as knowledge and understanding is gained and shared. It is important researchers are cognisant of, and learn from, potential tensions within research teams due to juxtaposed philosophies, methodologies and experiences, if the team is to function efficiently and positive outcomes are to be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]