Culturally Tailored Women’s Empowerment Strategies to Improve Immunization Uptake: Formative Research Using a Human-Centered Design Approach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Human-centered design (HCD) is vital for crafting impactful and successful health interventions. This approach has been effective in enhancing the uptake of health services, especially in rural areas. The Routine Immunization Buddy System (RIBS) is an HCD-driven intervention designed to support economically disadvantaged caregivers by empowering them to take greater responsibility for their own health and the immunization of their children. OBJECTIVE: Through a community-based participatory approach (CBPA), this study seeks to understand the economic, social, and health lifestyles and the impact on the health-seeking attributes of the potential beneficiaries of the project. This ensures that the identified intervention and its strategy will be implemented in a way that is of utmost benefit to the users. METHODS: Employing a three-step HCD process, including the Discovery, Ideation, and Formulation phases, the study conducted Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) for caregivers and stakeholders capable of influencing the woman's decision within a health setting. Semi-structured interviews facilitated an in-depth exploration of participants' experiences. Data collection utilized audio/video recordings, detailed notes, and observation sessions. Data analysis encompassed transcription, descriptive, and thematic analysis to inform evidence-based interventions. RESULTS: Four key interconnected barriers to routine immunization were identified from the formative research: vaccine hesitancy which is driven by safety concerns and inconsistency in vaccine-related messaging; gender-based decision-making constraints, where male approval often influenced access to care; financial limitations affecting transport and medical costs; and unequal access to healthcare due to geographic disparities. Caregivers emphasized the need for economic empowerment and trusted community-based health education. These findings informed a critical redesign of the intervention from a two-arm to a three-arm model, with peer support groups, and financial empowerment components added to address both economic barriers and vaccine misinformation through culturally tailored approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The use of human-centered design (HCD)-informed formative research has helped identify tailored women's empowerment strategies, such as economic support, community-led advocacy, and peer networks, that show promise in addressing health disparities among caregivers. These approaches are hoped to enhance caregivers' ability to make informed health decisions, ultimately contributing to improved immunization uptake and broader community well-being. The insights from this research are actively informing the design of our upcoming cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT), which aims to strengthen women's decision-making power around immunization services.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,082 | 0,056 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».