4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      National and international programmatic perspective on facilitators and barriers for Sudan’s health sector response on female genital mutilation (2016–2018): a qualitative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To explore the facilitators and barriers that affected the design and implementation of the first 3 years of Sudan’s largest health programme on female genital mutilation (FGM).

          Design

          We used a qualitative case study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to conduct in-depth interviews with programme managers and for thematic data analysis.

          Setting

          About 14 million girls and women in Sudan are affected by FGM, which is mainly performed by midwives (77%). Since 2016, Sudan has received substantial donor funding to develop and implement the largest global health programme to stop midwives’ involvement and improve the quality of FGM prevention and care services.

          Participants

          Eight Sudanese and two international programme managers representing governmental, international and national organisations and donor agencies participated in interviews. Their job positions required detailed involvement in planning, implementing and evaluating diverse health interventions in the areas of governance, building knowledge and skills of health workers, strengthening accountability, monitoring and evaluation and creating an enabling environment.

          Results

          Respondents identified funding availability and comprehensive plans, integration of FGM-related interventions within existing priority health intervention packages and presence of an evaluation and feedback culture within international organisations as implementation facilitators. The barriers were low health system functionality, low inter-organisational coordination culture, power asymmetries in decision-making during planning and implementation of nationally-funded and internationally-funded interventions, and non-supportive attitudes among health workers.

          Conclusion

          Understanding the factors affecting planning and implementation of Sudan’s health programme addressing FGM may potentially mitigate barriers and improve results. Interventions which change midwives’ supportive values and attitudes towards FGM, strengthen health system function and increase intersectoral and multisectoral coordination including equitable decision-making among relevant actors, may be needed to address the reported barriers. The impact of these interventions on the scale, effectiveness and sustainability of the health sector response merits further study.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

          Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power

            Sample sizes must be ascertained in qualitative studies like in quantitative studies but not by the same means. The prevailing concept for sample size in qualitative studies is "saturation." Saturation is closely tied to a specific methodology, and the term is inconsistently applied. We propose the concept "information power" to guide adequate sample size for qualitative studies. Information power indicates that the more information the sample holds, relevant for the actual study, the lower amount of participants is needed. We suggest that the size of a sample with sufficient information power depends on (a) the aim of the study, (b) sample specificity, (c) use of established theory, (d) quality of dialogue, and (e) analysis strategy. We present a model where these elements of information and their relevant dimensions are related to information power. Application of this model in the planning and during data collection of a qualitative study is discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2023
                13 June 2023
                : 13
                : 6
                : e070138
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Global Health , Ringgold_7284University of Washington , Seattle, Washington, USA
                [2 ] departmentInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH) , Ringgold_305040University of Washington , Seattle, Washington, USA
                [3 ] departmentDepartments of Global Health and Health Systems and Population Health , University of Washington , Seattle, Washington, USA
                [4 ] departmentDepartments of Global Health, Epidemiology and Medicine , Ringgold_7284University of Washington , Seattle, Washington, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Wisal Ahmed; wisal@ 123456uw.edu
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8155-8249
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6693-9278
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-070138
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070138
                10367081
                37316320
                1a5dd6b5-f368-4194-901d-b0cc1ab19309
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 16 November 2022
                : 24 May 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009633, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development;
                Award ID: research infrastructure grant, P2C HD042828
                Categories
                Public Health
                1506
                1724
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                health policy,qualitative research,public health,primary care
                Medicine
                health policy, qualitative research, public health, primary care

                Comments

                Comment on this article