Community engagement for malaria elimination in the Greater Mekong Sub-region: a qualitative study among malaria researchers and policymakers.
Community engagement
Intervention
Malaria
Participation
Policymakers
Population coverage
Research
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Feb 2022
14 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
22
10
2021
accepted:
30
01
2022
entrez:
15
2
2022
pubmed:
16
2
2022
medline:
17
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Community engagement has increasingly received attention in malaria research and programme interventions, particularly as countries aim for malaria elimination. Although community engagement strategies and activities are constantly developing, little is known about how those who implement research or programmes view community engagement. This article explores the perspectives of researchers and policy makers in the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS) on community engagement for malaria control and elimination. Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 17 policymakers and 15 senior researchers working in the field of malaria. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed in English. Transcribed data were analysed using deductive and inductive approaches in QSR NVivo. Themes and sub-themes were generated. Researchers and policymakers emphasized the importance of community engagement in promoting participation in malaria research and interventions. Building trust with the community was seen as crucial. Respondents emphasized involving authority/leadership structures and highlighted the need for intense and participatory engagement. Geographic remoteness, social, cultural, and linguistic diversity were identified as barriers to meaningful engagement. Local staff were described as an essential 'connect' between researchers or policymakers and prospective participants. Sharing information with community members, using various strategies including creative and participatory methods were highlighted. Policymakers and researchers involved in malaria prevention and control in the GMS viewed community engagement as crucial for promoting participation in research or programmatic interventions. Given the difficulties of the 'last mile' to elimination, sustained investment in community engagement is needed in isolated areas of the GMS where malaria transmission continues. Involving community-based malaria workers is ever more critical to ensure the elimination efforts engage hard-to-reach populations in remote areas of GMS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Community engagement has increasingly received attention in malaria research and programme interventions, particularly as countries aim for malaria elimination. Although community engagement strategies and activities are constantly developing, little is known about how those who implement research or programmes view community engagement. This article explores the perspectives of researchers and policy makers in the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS) on community engagement for malaria control and elimination.
METHODS
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 17 policymakers and 15 senior researchers working in the field of malaria. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed in English. Transcribed data were analysed using deductive and inductive approaches in QSR NVivo. Themes and sub-themes were generated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Researchers and policymakers emphasized the importance of community engagement in promoting participation in malaria research and interventions. Building trust with the community was seen as crucial. Respondents emphasized involving authority/leadership structures and highlighted the need for intense and participatory engagement. Geographic remoteness, social, cultural, and linguistic diversity were identified as barriers to meaningful engagement. Local staff were described as an essential 'connect' between researchers or policymakers and prospective participants. Sharing information with community members, using various strategies including creative and participatory methods were highlighted.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Policymakers and researchers involved in malaria prevention and control in the GMS viewed community engagement as crucial for promoting participation in research or programmatic interventions. Given the difficulties of the 'last mile' to elimination, sustained investment in community engagement is needed in isolated areas of the GMS where malaria transmission continues. Involving community-based malaria workers is ever more critical to ensure the elimination efforts engage hard-to-reach populations in remote areas of GMS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35164770
doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04069-x
pii: 10.1186/s12936-022-04069-x
pmc: PMC8845385
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
46Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 101148/Z/13/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Malar J. 2019 Jun 20;18(1):203
pubmed: 31221145
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Oct;61(7):1463-73
pubmed: 16005781
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 25;14(3):e0214280
pubmed: 30908523
Int Health. 2019 May 1;11(3):166-176
pubmed: 30395228
PLoS Med. 2007 Nov 27;4(11):e324
pubmed: 18044980
Malar J. 2017 May 19;16(1):206
pubmed: 28526019
Malar J. 2017 Jan 6;16(1):17
pubmed: 28061908
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907
pubmed: 29937585
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Apr 13;9(4):e0003713
pubmed: 25875485
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Aug;21(8):1086
pubmed: 34217431
Wellcome Open Res. 2017 Jul 28;2:59
pubmed: 28894847
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Sep;213:190-198
pubmed: 30142500
Am J Bioeth. 2010 Mar;10(3):24-6
pubmed: 20229411
Wellcome Open Res. 2018 Sep 18;3:116
pubmed: 30687790
Glob Health Action. 2015 Sep 18;8:28045
pubmed: 26387505
Malar J. 2016 Nov 2;15(1):523
pubmed: 27806717
Glob Bioeth. 2019 Dec 20;31(1):1-12
pubmed: 32002019
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013 Oct;8(4):1-18
pubmed: 24169417
Acta Trop. 2010 Jun;114(3):177-83
pubmed: 20132788
Glob Health Action. 2017;10(1):1366136
pubmed: 28914184
PLoS Med. 2008 May 20;5(5):e90
pubmed: 18494553
Lancet. 2007 Mar 10;369(9564):874-877
pubmed: 17350458
Malar J. 2017 Feb 14;16(1):75
pubmed: 28196536
Malar J. 2017 Oct 23;16(1):424
pubmed: 29061133
Malar J. 2019 Jul 17;18(1):245
pubmed: 31315631
Lancet. 2005 Jul 23-29;366(9482):336-40
pubmed: 16039339
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Apr;56(7):1453-68
pubmed: 12614697
BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1494-6
pubmed: 15205296
Afr J Reprod Health. 2014 Sep;18(3 Spec No):135-42
pubmed: 26050386
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Dec 13;15:84
pubmed: 25495054
Glob Bioeth. 2017 Dec 07;29(1):16-21
pubmed: 29249920
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 31;11(8):e0161311
pubmed: 27580098
Malar J. 2016 May 20;15(1):282
pubmed: 27206729
Malar J. 2016 Sep 27;15(1):494
pubmed: 27677694
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378(8):766-771
pubmed: 29466147
Soc Sci Med. 2008 Sep;67(5):708-20
pubmed: 18362046
Malar J. 2021 Mar 23;20(1):164
pubmed: 33757538
PLoS Med. 2019 Feb 15;16(2):e1002745
pubmed: 30768615
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 Jan;98(1):100-104
pubmed: 29165227
Malar J. 2011 Aug 04;10:225
pubmed: 21816085
Dev World Bioeth. 2013 Apr;13(1):1-9
pubmed: 23433316
J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 2;220(3):448-456
pubmed: 30882150
Lancet. 2017 Dec 17;388(10063):2990
pubmed: 27998527
Malar J. 2015 Oct 16;14:410
pubmed: 26474852
BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 21;11(7):e050632
pubmed: 34290072
Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Jul 1;88(7):509-18
pubmed: 20616970
Malar J. 2018 Jan 9;17(1):15
pubmed: 29316932
JAMA. 2009 Jul 22;302(4):424-8
pubmed: 19622821
Soc Sci Med. 2008 Sep;67(5):696-707
pubmed: 18455854
Trends Parasitol. 2010 Jun;26(6):279-83
pubmed: 20299285
Wellcome Open Res. 2019 May 31;4:87
pubmed: 31289754