MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2020051590 · doi:10.4102/curationis.v30i2.1070

Community participation in primary health care projects of the Muldersdrift Health and Development Programme

2007· article· en· W2020051590 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCurationis · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Établissements canadiensScience North
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCommunity participationEmpowermentNursingCommunity healthHealth careCommunity developmentPopulationMedical educationPsychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical sciencePublic healthSocioeconomicsEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

After numerous teething problems (1974-1994), the Department of Nursing Education of WITS University took responsibility for the Muldersdrift Health and Development Programme (MHDP). The nursing science students explored and implemented an empowerment approach to community participation. The students worked with MHDP health workers to improve health through community participation, in combination with primary health care (PHC) activities and the involvement of a variety of community groups. As the PHC projects evolved over time, the need arose to evaluate the level of community participation and how much community ownership was present over decision-making and resources. This led to the question "What was the level of community participation in PHC projects of the MHDP?" Based on the question the following objectives were set, i.e. (i) to evaluate the community participation in PHC initiatives; (ii) to provide the project partners with motivational affirmation on the level of community participation criteria thus far achieved; (iii) to indicate to participants the mechanisms that should still be implemented if they wanted to advance to higher levels of community participation; (iv) to evaluate the MHDP's implementation of a people-centred approach to community participation in PHC; and (v) the evaluation of the level of community participation in PHC projects in the MHDP. An evaluative, descriptive, contextual and quantitative research design was used. Ethical standards were adhered to throughout the study. The MHDP had a study population of twenty-three (N=23) PHC projects. A purposive sample of seven PHC initiatives was chosen according to specific selection criteria and evaluated according to the "Criteria to evaluate community participation in PHC projects" instrument (a quantitative tool). Structured group interviews were done with PHC projects' executive committee members. The Joint Management Committee's data was collected through mailed self-administered questionnaires. Validity and reliability were ensured according to strict criteria. Thereafter results were analysed and plotted on a radiating arm continuum. The following factors had component scores: organization, leadership, resources, management; needs and skills. A spider graph was produced after each factor's continuum was connected in a spoke figuration that brought them together at the base where participation was at its most narrow. The results are presented and a graph and discussion is provided on each of the PHC projects. The research results indicated that although community participation was broadened, there was minimal success in forcing a shift in power over decision-making and resources. This demonstrated that power over planning and resources should remain in the hands of the partners if community participation was to remain progressive and sustained. Results furthermore indicated that the people-centred approach to With regard to the Joint Management Committee's evaluation of community participation, it was concluded that power over decision-making and resources remained with health professionals rather than with the community, and that a people-centred approach had not been adopted.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,576
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,104
Tête enseignante GPT0,483
Écart entre enseignants0,379 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle