MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170899584 · doi:10.1017/s146342362100027x

The role of community participation in primary health care: practices of South African health committees

2021· article· en· W3170899584 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hanne Jensen Haricharan, Maria Stuttaford, Leslie London

Bibliographic record

VenuePrimary Health Care Research & Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSouth Africa Netherlands research Programme on Alternatives in DevelopmentNational Research FoundationEuropean CommissionInternational Development Research CentreWellcome Trust
KeywordsCLARITYThematic analysisFocus groupHealth careWorkforceCommunity healthHealth promotionCommunity participationNursingPublic relationsMedicineQualitative researchPsychologyPolitical scienceBusinessPublic healthSocioeconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Community participation is an essential component in a primary health care (PHC) and a human rights approach to health. In South Africa, community participation in PHC is organised through health committees linked to all clinics. AIMS: This paper analyses health committees' roles, their degree of influence in decision-making and factors impacting their participation. METHODS: Data were collected through a mixed-methods study consisting of a cross-sectional survey, focus groups, interviews and observations. The findings from the survey were analysed using simple descriptive statistics. The qualitative data were analysed using thematic content analysis. Data on health committees' roles were analysed according to a conceptual framework adapted from the Arnstein ladder of participation to measure the degree of participation. FINDINGS: The study found that 55 per cent of clinics in Cape Town were linked to a health committee. The existing health committees faced sustainability and functionality challenges and primarily practised a form of limited participation. Their decision-making influence was curtailed, and they mainly functioned as a voluntary workforce assisting clinics with health promotion talks and day-to-day operational tasks. Several factors impacted health committee participation, including lack of clarity on health committees' roles, health committee members' skills, attitudes of facility managers and ward councillors, limited resources and support and lack of recognition. CONCLUSIONS: To create meaningful participation, health committee roles should be defined in accordance with a PHC and human rights framework. Their primary role should be to function as health governance structures at facility level, but they should also have access to influence policy development. Consideration should be given to their potential involvement in addressing social determinants of health. Effective participation requires an enabling environment, including support, financial resources and training.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrimary Health Care Research & DevelopmentSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207