How is inclusiveness in health systems research priority-setting affected when community organizations lead the process?

Author:

Pratt Bridget12,Srinivas Prashanth N3,Seshadri Tanya34ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Queensland Bioethics Centre, Australian Catholic University , Brisbane, 1100 Nudgee Road, Banyo, QLD 4014, Australia

2. Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne , Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia

3. Institute of Public Health , 3009, II-A Main, 17th Cross, Krishna Rajendra Road, Banashankari Stage II, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560070, India

4. Vivekananda Girijana Kalyana Kendra , BR Hills, Chamarajanagar District, Karnataka 571441, India

Abstract

Abstract Community engagement is gaining prominence in health research. But communities rarely have a say in the agendas or conduct of the very health research projects that aim to help them. One way thought to achieve greater inclusion for communities throughout health research projects, including during priority-setting, is for researchers to partner with community organizations (COs). This paper provides initial empirical evidence as to the complexities such partnerships bring to priority-setting practice. Case study research was undertaken on a three-stage CO-led priority-setting process for health systems research. The CO was the Zilla Budakattu Girijana Abhivrudhhi Sangha, a district-level community development organization representing the Soliga people in Karnataka, India. Data on the priority-setting process were collected in 2018 and 2019 through in-depth interviews with researchers, Sangha leaders and field investigators from the Soliga community who collected data as part of the priority-setting process. Direct observation and document collection were also performed, and data from all three sources were thematically analysed. The case study demonstrates that, when COs lead health research priority-setting, their strengths and weaknesses in terms of representation and voice will affect inclusion at each stage of the priority-setting process. CO strengths can deepen inclusion by the CO and its wider community. CO weaknesses can create limitations for inclusion if not mitigated, exacerbating or reinforcing the very hierarchies that impede the achievement of improved health outcomes, e.g. exclusion of women in decision-making processes related to their health. Based on these findings, recommendations are made to support the achievement of inclusive CO-led health research priority-setting processes.

Funder

Australian Research Council

The Wellcome Trust DBT India Alliance

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Policy

Reference33 articles.

1. Re-sounding the alert- gender, resources and community action;Agarwal;World Development,1997

2. A ladder of citizen participation;Arnstein;Journal of the American Institute of Planners,1969

3. Coding in-depth semistructured interview: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement;Campbell;Sociological Methods & Research,2013

4. Making a difference? Gender and participatory development;Cornwall,2001

5. Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices;Cornwall;Community Development Journal,2008

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3