| Literature DB >> 32381090 |
James O'Donovan1,2, Allan S Namanda3, Rebecca Hamala3, Niall Winters4, Mahmood F Bhutta5.
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.Entities:
Keywords: Community health workers; Ear disease; Hearing loss; Participatory visual methods; Photovoice
Year: 2020 PMID: 32381090 PMCID: PMC7203865 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-020-01158-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Community Health Worker participant demographics and characteristics
| CHW | Sex | Age | Years of Education | Highest level of education | Job | Number of years as CHW | Number of households served |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHW1 | F | 50 | 9 | Some secondary | Farmer | 8 | 50 |
| CHW2 | F | 42 | 12 | Some secondary | Farmer | 8 | 38 |
| CHW3 | F | 44 | 9 | Some secondary | Farmer | 8 | 30 |
| CHW4 | M | 45 | 7 | Some primary | Builder and farmer | 8 | 120 |
| CHW 5 | F | 31 | 13 | Completed secondary | Farmer | 10 | 105 |
| CHW6 | M | 67 | 8 | Some primary | Farmer | 8 | 35 |
| CHW7 | F | 34 | 9 | Some secondary | Farmer | 8 | 68 |
| CHW8 | M | 40 | 11 | Some secondary | Farmer | 8 | 35 |
| CHW 9 | M | 53 | 11 | Some secondary | Farmer | 10 | 35 |
| CHW 10 | F | 50 | 13 | Some secondary | Shop attendant and farmer | 8 | 100 |
| CHW 11 | F | 46 | 13 | Some secondary | Farmer | 10 | 100 |
| CHW 12 | M | 39 | 13 | Completed secondary | Farmer | 11 | 50 |
| CHW 13 | F | 42 | 12 | Some secondary | Farmer | 8 | 38 |
Details and demographics for the 13 CHWs who participated in this study.
Fig. 1Photo display at Community Workshop. Photographs captured by the CHWs are displayed at a Community Workshop. In this photograph, a female CHW (blue t-shirt) stands by her photographs and explains to the workshop participants the meaning behind the photographs
Summary of steps involved in our Photovoice study
| Stage | Description of Stage |
|---|---|
| We applied for ethical approval from both our host institution and the local ethics board(s) in Uganda in order to conduct the photovoice study. We engaged regularly with the review boards to update them with any changes to the project protocol. | |
| Once ethical approval was granted we selected participants in a participatory manner, by consulting with key stakeholders. We used purposive sampling to select a diverse range of participants. | |
| We held a joint meeting with CHWs and study facilitators to decide upon the topic that was to be the central focus of the project. In the case of this study, CHWs selected to explore experiences of delivering primary ear and hearing care in the community. | |
| This stage involved technical training of CHWs in the use of cameras, as well as how to obtain informed consent. | |
| This stage was conducted in a cyclical manner and completed once a month, over a three month period until data saturation. | |
| Photographs were grouped and sorted into themes. This was first done individually and then as a group. | |
| Findings were shared with the wider community, through a community workshop. |
The key stages involved in our photovoice study.
Fig. 2Ear Washout. A CHW carrying out an ear wash out in the community for impacted ear wax
Fig. 3Traditional beliefs regarding treatment of ear disease. A child with roasted bone placed around the ear to treat external wounds
Fig. 4A mud brick house. A mud brick house, common for the local area, reflecting high levels of poverty in the local area
Fig. 5Supervision in the community. A CHW (orange t-shirt) being supervised on a home visit in the community by a peer-supervisor (black shirt)
Fig. 6On-going training and assessment. A male CHW (orange t-shirt) being assessed by a female ENT surgeon (wearing a yellow dress) at a refresher training workshop
Attendees at community dissemination workshop
| Stakeholder Group | Number of Attendees (%) |
|---|---|
| Community Health Workers | 16 (38%) |
| Community members | 14 (33%) |
| Non-governmental Organisation staff | 4 (10%) |
| Local governance representative | 4 (10%) |
| Health Facility Staff | 2 (5%) |
| Religious leader | 1 (2%) |
| Peer educator | 1 (2%) |
Breakdown of attendees at community dissemination workshop by stakeholder group.
Likert scale ratings on questionnaire at the community dissemination workshop
| Rating | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. How clear were the objectives of the workshop? | 0% | 0% | 0% | 31% ( | 69% ( |
| 2. How well organised was the workshop? | 0% | 0% | 3% ( | 39% ( | 58% ( |
| 3. How useful were the photographs in helping you understand community-based ear care? | 0% | 0% | 3% ( | 36% ( | 61% ( |
| 4. How likely are you to use the knowledge of community ear care issues observed today in your future work? | 0% | 0% | 11% ( | 28% ( | 61% ( |
For questions 1 and 2: 1 = Very poor; 2 = Poor; 3 = Fair; 4 = Good; 5 = Very good. For question 3: 1 = Not useful at all; 2 = Slightly useful; 3 = Moderately useful; 4 = Very useful; 5 = Extremely useful. For question 4: 1 = Extremely unlikely; 2 = Unlikely; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Very likely; 5 = Extremely likely.