MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4404533433 · doi:10.5463/thesis.905

As long as you have engaged Community Health Promoters, no one cares if you have involved the CHCs or not”

2024· dissertation· en· W4404533433 sur OpenAlexaff
Robinson Karuga

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Établissements canadiensAthena Sustainable Materials Institute
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPromoterMedicineData scienceSociologyGerontologyComputer scienceBiologyGeneticsGene

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Community participation is an essential process that entails empowering lay community members to actively engage in the decision-making, planning and evaluating the delivery of primary health care (PHC) services. In Kenya, Community Health Committees (CHCs) are mechanisms for lay community members to participate in overseeing the delivery of basic health services at the household and community levels. There is limited research or programmatic evidence on the impact and functionality of CHCs. This thesis defines CHC functionality as the extent to which CHCs provide a platform for lay community members to participate in leadership, planning, mobilizing and managing resources, and evaluating the delivery of community health services in their communities. The research questions are: i) What factors influence the functionality of CHCs as mechanisms of community participation in sub-Saharan Africa and in Kenya specifically? ii) How do CHCs’ relationships and communication with outside stakeholders and within the CHC influence the functionality of CHCs as mechanisms of community participation in Kenya? iii) How does the implementation of community/ CHC-related health policy influence the functionality of CHCs in Kenya? This research was conducted within the scope of Health Systems and Policy Research (HPSR) using a descriptive qualitative design. Data were collected between 2017 and 2021 using a combination of interviews, document reviews, and focus group discussions. Key lessons: i) There is a disproportionate focus on the delivery of community health services by health professionals over community participation through CHCs. When service delivery takes precedence, health professionals invest more time and resources in CHPs, who are perceived as more valuable in helping to achieve service delivery targets compared to CHCs. ii) Power asymmetry in CHCs affects their functionality. Power asymmetry is driven by uneven access to information and resources. Health professionals who work with CHCs exert their power by stereotyping lay community members in CHCs and excluding them from decision-making and planning processes. Lay CHCs members who are also CHPs have more access to information and resources from health professionals and other actors, such as NGOs, compared to non-CHPs. iii) Inter-role conflict among CHAs and CHPs, who are also CHC members, arises due to the dual responsibilities of providing community health services while also overseeing the delivery of those same services. Inter-role conflict influences the functionality of CHCs because CHAs and CHPs tend to focus more on meeting service delivery targets at the expense of playing their designated oversight roles as CHC members. iv) Health professionals often select CHC members they find it easier to work with. They prefer to work with elite members in relatively affluent communities and have a higher educational status than other community members. The process of selecting these members often needs to be more transparent and participatory, which erodes the trust and legitimacy of CHCs among their constituents. While CHC members may not resemble vulnerable and marginalized persons in their communities, they often stand for the interests of those they represent. While elite community members use their gravitas to advance the representative agenda of CHCs, there is a risk of elite capture in the decision-making processes. The findings and reflections in this thesis contribute to a better understanding of the complex contextual factors and interpersonal interactions that influence the functionality of CHCs in Kenya. This research also provides practical insights for health managers and policymakers in other low and middle-income settings on how to strengthen community participation through CHCs. In conclusion, the analyzed CHCs exhibited limited functionality in fulfilling their role as mechanisms for community participation, due to power imbalances within CHCs, inadequate policy guidance, insufficient awareness of roles and responsibilities, and suboptimal teamwork.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,111

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,007
Communication savante0,0040,005
Science ouverte0,0010,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0330,009

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 Opus0,128
Tête enseignante GPT0,456
Écart entre enseignants0,328 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→Travaux en français237 207→