Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31533696›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

A qualitative appraisal of stakeholders' perspectives of a community-based primary health care program in rural Ghana.

Mawuli K Kushitor, Adriana A Biney, Kalifa Wright, James F Phillips, John Koku Awoonor-Williams, Ayaga A Bawah

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Implementing patient-public engagement for improved health: Lessons from three Ghanaian community-based programmes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Mawuli K KushitorRegional Institute for Population Studies (RIPS), University of Ghana, P.O.Box LG 96, Legon, Ghana. mkushitor@gmail.com.
Adriana A BineyRegional Institute for Population Studies (RIPS), University of Ghana, P.O.Box LG 96, Legon, Ghana.
Kalifa WrightHeilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
James F PhillipsHeilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
John Koku Awoonor-WilliamsPolicy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Division, Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana.
Ayaga A BawahRegional Institute for Population Studies (RIPS), University of Ghana, P.O.Box LG 96, Legon, Ghana.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Ghana Community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) initiative is a national strategy for improving access to primary health care services for underserved communities. Following a successful trial in the North Eastern part of the country, CHPS was adopted as Ghana's flagship programme for achieving the Universal Health Coverage. Recent empirical evidence suggests, however, that scale-up of CHPS has not necessarily replicated the successes of the pilot study. This study examines the community's perspective of the performance of CHPS and how the scale up could potentially align with the original experimental study.

methodApplying a qualitative research methodology, this study analysed transcripts from 20 focus group discussions (FGDs) in four functional CHPS zones in separate districts of the Northern and Volta Regions of Ghana to understand the community's assessment of CHPS. The study employed the thematic analysis to explore the content of the CHPS service provision, delivery and how community members feel about the service. In addition, ordinary least regression model was applied in interpreting 126 scores consigned to CHPS by the study respondents.

resultsTwo broad areas of consensus were observed: general favourable and general unfavourable thematic areas. Favourable themes were informed by approval, appreciation, hard work and recognition of excellent services. The unfavourable thematic area was informed by rudeness, extortion, inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour, lack of basic equipment and disappointments. The findings show that mothers of children under the age of five, adolescent girls without children, and community leaders generally expressed favourable perceptions of CHPS while fathers of children under the age of five and adolescent boys without children had unfavourable expressions about the CHPS program. A narrow focus on maternal and child health explains the demographic divide on the perception of CHPS. The study revealed wide disparities in actual CHPS deliverables and community expectations.

conclusionsA communication gap between health care providers and community members explains the high and unrealistic expectations of CHPS. Efforts to improve program acceptability and impact should address the need for more general outreach to social networks and men rather than a sole focus on facility-based maternal and child health care.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildFathersFemaleGhanaHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMothersPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CareRural Health ServicesUniversal Health InsuranceClient perceptionsCommunity-based primary health careGhanaParticipatory planningQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID31533696
PMCPMC6751899

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.