Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23364096›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2013

A South African university-practitioner partnership to strengthen capacity in social and behaviour change communication.

Nicola J Christofides, Sara Nieuwoudt, Shereen Usdin, Susan Goldstein, Sharon Fonn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicola J ChristofidesSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. nicola.christofides@wits.ac.za
Sara Nieuwoudt
Shereen Usdin
Susan Goldstein
Sharon Fonn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Globally, communication plays an integral role in public health strategies, from infectious diseases to diseases related to lifestyles. The evolution of the field of social and behaviour change communication (SBCC), combined with the need for evidence based practice and multi-level interventions to promote health, and human resource gaps in sub-Saharan Africa have led to the imperative to standardise and formalise the field. Moreover, current practitioners come from different disciplinary backgrounds underlining the need to define common core skills and competencies. This paper describes the partnership between the Wits School of Public Health and the Soul City Institute for Health and Development Communication and how the partners responded to this need. It highlights the factors influencing sustainable institutional capacity to provide quality assured, accredited training. We describe an unexpected positive response from a number of practitioner organisations that have chosen to send multiple staff members for training, specifically to build a critical mass within their organisations. Finally, we note the interest from (mostly) southern-based academic institutions in setting up similar programmes and postulate that south-south collaborations can contribute to building sustainable context specific and evidence-informed SBCC programmes in the global south.

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth BehaviorSocial ChangeCooperative BehaviorCurriculumGeneral PractitionersHumansInterinstitutional RelationsSchools, Public HealthSouth AfricaUniversitiesAfricacompetency-based curriculumdonor responsivenessinstitutional capacity strengtheningpractitioner academic partnershipSBCCsouth–south collaboration

Identifiers

PMID23364096
PMCPMC3556713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.