Search

Background: While integral to decentralising health reforms, Community Health Workers (CHWs) in South Africa experience many challenges. During COVID-19, CHW roles changed rapidly, shifting from communities to clinics. In the contexts of new roles and re-engineered primary healthcare (PHC), the objectives were to: (a) implement a training intervention to support local decision-making capability of CHWs; and (b) assess learning and impacts from the perspectives of CHWs. Methods: CHWs from three rural villages (n = 9) were trained in rapid Participatory Action Research (PAR) with peers and community stakeholders (n = 33). Training equipped CHWs with tools and techniques to convene community groups, raise and/or respond to local health concerns, understand concerns from different perspectives, and facilitate action in communities and public services. CHWs’ perspectives before and after the intervention were gained through semi-structured interviews. Data were collected and analysed using the decision space framework to understand local actors’ power to affect devolved decision-making. Results: CHWs demonstrated significant resilience and commitment in the face of COVID-19. They experienced multiple, intersecting challenges including: limited financial, logistical and health systems support, poor role clarity, precarious employment, low and no pay, unstable organisational capacity, fragile accountability mechanisms and belittling treatment in clinics. Together, these restricted decision space and were seen to reflect a low valuing of the cadre in the system. CHWs saw the training as a welcome opportunity to assert themselves as a recognised cadre. Regular, spaces for dialogue and mutual learning supported CHWs to gain tools and skills to rework their agency in more empowered ways. The training improved management capacity, capabilities for dialogue, which expanded role clarity, and strengthened community mobilisation, facilitation and analysis skills. Development of pub, On behalf of the Verbal Autopsy with Participatory Action Research (VAPAR)/Wits/Mpumalanga Department of Health Learning Platform.Correction: Lucia D’Ambruoso, Nana Akua Abruquah, Denny Mabetha, Maria van der Merwe, Gerhard Goosen, Jerry Sigudla, Sophie Witter on behalf of the Verbal Autopsy with Participatory Action Research (VAPAR)/Wits/Mpumalanga Department of Health Learning Platform. Human Resources for Health. 2023;21;1, Article number 78. DOI: 10.1186/s12960-023-00863-z

BACKGROUND: Despite international evidence supporting community participation in health for improved health outcomes and more responsive and equitable health systems there is little practical evidence on how to do this. This work sought to understand the process involved in collective implementation of a health-related local action plan developed by multiple stakeholders. METHODS: Communities, government departments and non-government stakeholders convened in three iterative phases of a participatory action research (PAR) learning cycle. Stakeholders were involved in problem identification, development, and implementation of a local action plan, reflection on action, and reiteration of the process. Participants engaged in reflective exercises, exploring how factors such as power and interest impacted success or failure. RESULTS: The local action plan was partially successful, with three out of seven action items achieved. High levels of both power and interest were key factors in the achievement of action items. For the achieved items, stakeholders reported that continuous interactions with one another created a shift in both power and interest through ownership of implementation processes. Participants who possessed significant power and influence were able to leverage resources and connections to overcome obstacles and barriers to progress the plan. Lack of financial support, shifting priorities and insufficient buy-in from stakeholders hindered implementation. CONCLUSION: The process offered new ways of thinking and stakeholders were supported to generate local evidence for action and learning. The process also enabled exploration of how different stakeholders with different levels of power and interest coalesce to design, plan, and act on evidence. Creation of safe spaces was achievable, meanwhile changing stakeholders' level of power and interest was possible but challenging. This study suggests that when researchers, service providers and communities are conne

There is limited operational understanding of multisectoral action in health inclusive of communities as active change agents. The objectives were to: (a) develop community-led action-learning, advancing multisectoral responses for local public health problems; and (b) derive transferrable learning. Participants representing communities, government departments and non-governmental organisations in a rural district in South Africa co-designed the process. Participants identified and problematised local health concerns, coproduced and collectively analysed data, developed and implemented local action, and reflected on and refined the process. Project data were analysed to understand how to expand community-led action across sectors. Community actors identified alcohol and other drug (AOD) abuse as a major problem locally, and generated evidence depicting a self-sustaining problem, destructive of communities and disproportionately affecting children and young people. Community and government actors then developed action plans to rebuild community control over AOD harms. Implementation underscored community commitment, but also revealed organisational challenges and highlighted the importance of coordination with government reforms. While the action plan was only partially achieved, new relationships and collective capabilities were built, and the process was recommended for integration into district health planning and review. We created spaces engaging otherwise disconnected stakeholders to build dialogue, evidence, and action. Engagement needed time, space, and a sensitive, inclusive approach. Regular engagement helped develop collaborative mindsets. Credible, actionable information supported engagement. Collectively reflecting on and adapting the process supported aligning to local systems priorities and enabled uptake. The process made gains raising community ‘voice’ and initiating dialogue with the authorities, giving the voice ‘teeth’. Achieving ‘bite’, however

Background: In South Africa, community participation has been embraced through the development of progressive policies to address past inequities. However, limited information is available to understand community involvement in priority setting, planning and decision-making in the development and implementation of public services. Objective: This narrative review aims to provide evidence on forms, extents, contexts and dynamics of community participation in primary health care (PHC) and water governance in South Africa and draw cross-cutting lessons. This paper focuses on health and water governance structures, such as health committees, Catchment Management Agencies (CMA), Water User Associations (WUAs), Irrigation Boards (IBs) and Community Management Forums (CMFs). Methods: Articles were sourced from Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, WHO Global Health Library, Global Health and Science Citation Index between 1994 and 2020 reporting on community participation in health and water governance in South Africa. Databases were searched using key terms to identify relevant research articles and grey literature. Twenty-one articles were included and analysed thematically. Results: There is limited evidence on how health committees are functioning in all provinces in South Africa. Existing evidence shows that health committees are not functioning effectively due to lack of clarity on roles, autonomy, power, support, and capacity. There was slow progress in establishment of water governance structures, although these are autonomous and have mechanisms for democratic control, unlike health committees. Participation in CMAs/WUAs/IBs/CMFs is also not effective due to manipulation of spaces by elites, lack of capacity of previously disadvantaged individuals, inadequate incentives, and low commitment to the process by stakeholders. Conclusion: Power and authority in decision-making, resources and accountability are key for effective community participation

Background: NCDs are non-infectious, long-term conditions that account for 40 million deaths per annum. 87% of premature NCD mortality occurs in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: The aims were:develop methods to provide integrated biosocial accounts of NCD mortality; and explore the practical utility of extended mortality data for the primary health care system. Methods: We drew on data from research programmes in the study area. Data were analysed in three steps: [a]analysis of levels, causes and circumstances of NCD mortality [n = 4,166] from routine census updates including Verbal Autopsy and of qualitative data on lived experiences of NCDs in rural villages from participatory research; [b] identifying areas of convergence and divergence between the analyses; and [c]exploration of the practical relevance of the data drawing on engagements with health systems stakeholders. Results: NCDs constituted a significant proportion of mortality in this setting [36%]. VA data revealed multiple barriers to access in end-of-life care. Many deaths were attributed to problems with resources and health systems [21%;19% respectively]. The qualitative research provided rich complementary detail on the processes through which risk originates, accumulates and is expressed in access to end-of-life care, related to chronic poverty and perceptions of poor quality care in clinics. The exploration of practical relevance revealed chronic under-funding for NCD services, and an acute need for robust, timely data on the NCD burden. Conclusions: VA data allowed a significant burden of NCD mortality to be quantified and revealed barriers to access at and around the time of death. Qualitative research contextualised these barriers, providing explanations of how and why they exist and persist. Health systems analysis revealed shortages of resources allocated to NCDs and a need for robust research to provide locally relevant evidence to organise and deliver care. Pragmatic interdiscipl