| Literature DB >> 32994243 |
Kendra N Williams1,2, Lisa M Thompson3, Zoe Sakas4, Mayari Hengstermann5, Ashlinn Quinn6, Anaité Díaz-Artiga5, Gurusamy Thangavel7, Elisa Puzzolo8, Ghislaine Rosa4, Kalpana Balakrishnan7, Jennifer Peel9, William Checkley10,2, Thomas F Clasen11, J Jaime Miranda12, Joshua P Rosenthal6, Steven A Harvey13.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Increasing use of cleaner fuels, such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and abandonment of solid fuels is key to reducing household air pollution and realising potential health improvements in low-income countries. However, achieving exclusive LPG use in households unaccustomed to this type of fuel, used in combination with a new stove technology, requires substantial behaviour change. We conducted theory-grounded formative research to identify contextual factors influencing cooking fuel choice to guide the development of behavioural strategies for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network (HAPIN) trial. The HAPIN trial will assess the impact of exclusive LPG use on air pollution exposure and health of pregnant women, older adult women, and infants under 1 year of age in Guatemala, India, Peru, and Rwanda.Entities:
Keywords: community child health; public health; qualitative research
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32994243 PMCID: PMC7526279 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037761
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Formative research methods to design a behavioural intervention for the HAPIN trial
| Guatemala | India | Peru | Rwanda | |
| Participant observations Cooking demonstra-tions | Participant observations of cooking activities in 36 homes with LPG and wood stoves, 2–3 hours in each home | N/A* | N/A* | Eighteen 2-hour LPG cooking demonstrations and blind food tasting with non-LPG users (participants did not keep LPG stoves or cylinders) |
| In-depth interviews | Eighteen interviews with women (primary cooks; 26–68 years of age) and six group interviews with three or four male participants | Twenty-five interviews, 11 in Nagapattinam and 14 in Kallakurichi (previously Villupuram; 23 female cooks, 2 men; six solid fuel users, 4 LPG users, 15 mixed fuel users; 21–65 years of age) | Seven interviews (six pregnant women, 1 new mother) | Fifty-four interviews with female primary cooks (14 LPG users, 22 non-LPG users, and repeat interviews with 18 of the same non-LPG users after an LPG cooking demonstration) |
| Key informant discussions | One informal interview with an LPG distributor in Jalapa and one informal interview with a stove manufacturer | Informal discussions with LPG distributors and managers, and local community members | Informal discussions with field staff native to Puno | Twelve informal interviews with local field staff who installed the LPG stove and delivered behavioural training during the pilot study |
| Focus group discussions | Nine FGDs of 5–6 participants (51 women; 2 men) | Two informal social group discussions (one in each site) with local villagers | One FGD, 7 participants (4 pregnant women, 3 new mothers) | Five FGDs to develop behaviour change materials (4 participants per group; 18–68 years of age), 4 FGDs to refine materials with pilot participants (2 FGDs after 1 month of LPG use, 2 FGDs after 2 months of LPG use; women 18–33 years of age; 0–2 children per household; 3–7 participants per group) |
| LPG stove pilot study | Behavioural messages reviewed on LPG stove installation and reinforced at LPG cylinder delivery visits in 60 households over a 3-month period | Behavioural messages delivered at LPG stove installation to the 20 pilot intervention households | N/A (messages and materials piloted through CHAP study) | Behavioural messages and materials delivered to 40 pilot study households |
*Participant observations and cooking demonstrations were not conducted in Peru or India given widespread awareness of LPG and previous research in these areas.32
CHAP, Cardiopulmonary outcomes and Household Air Pollution; FGDs, focus group discussions; IDIs, in-depth interviews; LPG, liquefied petroleum gas.
Summary of qualitative findings according to identified themes across study sites
| Guatemala | India | Peru | Rwanda | |
| 1. Perceived disadvantages of solid fuel stoves | ||||
| Smoke is physically irritating | X | X | X | X |
| Solid fuel stoves dirty kitchens, cookware, clothes and hands | X | X | X | X |
| Collecting and cooking with solid fuels requires time and energy costs | X | X | X | X |
| Monetary costs of solid fuel | X | X | ||
| Fear of snakes and environmental hazards when collecting fuel | X | X | X | X |
| Difficulty collecting and lighting wet solid fuel | X | X | ||
| 2. Family influences on cooking practices | ||||
| Family complaints that food gets cold quickly with LPG | X | X | ||
| Family complaints that food cooked with LPG lacks flavour | X | |||
| Family preference for food cooked with LPG because food does not taste like smoke | X | |||
| Family preference for LPG because food cooks faster | X | X | X | X |
| Family perception that LPG represents modernity | X | X | ||
| Husbands believe smoke harms their wives, but not husbands who do not cook | X | |||
| 3. Cookware | ||||
| Belief that commonly used clay pots cannot be used on LPG stoves | X | X | ||
| Large, flat griddle required for tortillas | X | |||
| Large pots required to cook staple foods | X | X | ||
| Meat, fish and vegetables commonly roasted on open fires | X | |||
| 4. Traditional food | ||||
| Perception that some traditional dishes taste better when cooked with solid fuel | X | X | X | |
| Preference to cook food with solid fuel for family festivities and special occasions | X | X | X | |
| Preference to cook beans with solid fuel | X | X | ||
| 5. Other stove uses | ||||
| Heating water for bathing and washing | X | X | X | X |
| Cooking food for animals | X | |||
| Making alcoholic beverages | X | |||
| 6. Home heating needs | ||||
| Warmth from traditional stove viewed as beneficial during cold months | X | X | ||
| 7. LPG awareness | ||||
| Active governmental LPG campaigns have achieved high LPG awareness | X | X | ||
| Low LPG awareness in countries that lack governmental LPG campaigns | X | X | ||
| 8. LPG fears and safety | ||||
| Fear of LPG leaks and explosions or fires | X | X | X | |
| Fear of improperly attaching regulator and hose to the LPG cylinder | X | X | ||
| Fear of LPG-related burns | X | X | ||
| Concerns for child safety | X | X | X | |
| Mistrust of LPG providers | X | X | ||
| 9. LPG cost, supply and distribution | ||||
| LPG refills perceived as expensive | X | X | X | X |
| Large and highly regulated governmental LPG market | X | |||
| Fewer governmental controls on LPG market | X | X | X | |
| Lack of LPG sale points and delivery capability in study areas | X | X | X | |
| Households are difficult to access (large distances between homes, lack of roads for transport) | X | X | ||
LPG, liquefied petroleum gas.
Themes, behavioural messages and strategies based on the BCW developed during formative research for the HAPIN trial
| Themes | Behavioural messages | COM–B/TDF domain* | Strategies and |
| 1. Perceived disadvantages of solid fuel | Using gas prevents discomfort (by reducing smoke) |
|
Emphasise disadvantages of traditional stoves to encourage abandonment of solid fuel
|
| Gas can be used in all seasons/weather |
| ||
| Using gas is easy | |||
| Gas eliminates smoke in the home | |||
| Gas keeps hands, clothes, pots and kitchens cleaner | |||
| With gas you do not need to collect or buy solid fuel | |||
| Gas will not make holes in thatch/aluminium roof | |||
| 2. Family influences | Tips for addressing concerns of household members |
|
Target behavioural interventions to all household members, not just primary cooks
|
| Tips for addressing concerns of friends/neighbours |
| ||
| You can keep foods hot, or reheat quickly, after cooking them with gas | |||
| Using gas saves money and time | |||
| 3. Cookware | Using clay and other pots on the gas stove |
|
Stove use demonstrations Guatemala and Rwanda: provide cookware to enable typical cooking behaviours
|
| How to cook large quantities of food with gas | |||
| How to roast on an LPG stove | |||
| 4. Traditional food | It is possible to cook beans on an LPG stove |
|
Guatemala and Rwanda: encourage soaking beans Rwanda: emphasise removing large pots from stove for forceful stirring
|
| How to cook traditional dishes with gas |
| ||
| How to enhance food flavour without solid fuel | |||
| How to make beer on an LPG stove | |||
| Practice makes perfect | |||
| 5. Other stove uses | Everything can be done with gas |
|
Reassure households that LPG will be provided to meet all household cooking needs
|
|
| |||
| 6. Home heating needs | How to stay warm when cooking with gas |
|
Emphasise that no stove should be used for heating home Emphasise other LPG benefits as trade-offs for lack of heat
|
| 7. LPG awareness | How to use LPG stove (turn off, turn on, open and close the gas) |
|
Hands-on training on stove operation
|
| How to regulate the flame, to prevent burning food and to save gas | |||
| How to clean stove | |||
| 8. LPG fears and safety | Gas is natural, like wood; the smell added to it is unpleasant to alert leaks, but not toxic |
|
Provide training on gas safety; provide phone numbers for project staff if leak detected or stove in need of repair; respond to household fears around gas use
|
| How to avoid burns |
| ||
| Child safety | |||
| If used correctly, LPG stoves are completely safe | |||
| How to check for and respond to a leak (soapy water) | |||
| How to change the cylinder | |||
| Explaining reasons why LPG brand can be trusted | |||
| Millions of people use LPG stoves with no problems | |||
| Who to call if there is a problem | |||
| Where/how to get technical support | |||
| How to store stove and gas cylinders properly | |||
| 9. LPG costs, supply, and distribution | Anticipating when gas will run out (cylinder check) |
|
Provide phone numbers for project staff if need gas refill; at installation instruct on secure storage of stove and cylinders
|
| What to do when you need a gas refill (including when and who to call) |
| ||
| Security measures to prevent theft |
*Examples of theoretical domains are provided, but are not exhaustive.
BCW, Behaviour Change Wheel; COM–B, Capability, Opportunity, Motivation–Behaviour; HAPIN, Household Air Pollution Intervention Network; LPG, liquefied petroleum gas; TDF, Theoretical Domains Framework.
Figure 1Geocene Dot data from one household showing a flagged cooking event with a rapid temperature increase.