Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32024794›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Verbal Autopsy with Participatory Action Research (VAPAR) programme in Mpumalanga, South Africa: protocol for evaluation.

Sophie Witter, Maria Van Der Merwe, Rhian Twine, Denny Mabetha, Jennifer Hove, Gerhard Goosen, Lucia D'Ambruoso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Value Proposition of Coordinated Population Cohorts Across Africa.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Sophie WitterInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK switter@qmu.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7656-6188
Maria Van Der MerweIndependent consultant, White River, South Africa.
Rhian TwineMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg-Braamfontein, South Africa.
Denny MabethaMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg-Braamfontein, South Africa.
Jennifer HoveMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg-Braamfontein, South Africa.
Gerhard GoosenMpumalanga Department of Health, Mbombela, Mpumalanga, South Africa.
Lucia D'AmbruosoCentre for Global Development, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Aberdeen City, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N005597/1Medical Research Council MR/P014844/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 058893/Z/99/AWellcome Trust 069683/Z/02/ZWellcome Trust 085477/B/08/ZWellcome Trust 085477/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is a growing recognition of the importance of developing learning health systems which can engage all stakeholders in cycles of evidence generation, reflection, action and learning from action to deal with adaptive problems. There is however limited evaluative evidence of approaches to developing or strengthening such systems, particularly in low-income and middle-income settings. In this protocol, we aim to contribute to developing and sharing knowledge on models of building collaborative learning platforms through our evaluation of the Verbal Autopsy with Participatory Action Research (VAPAR) programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The evaluation takes a participatory approach, focussed on joint learning on whether and how VAPAR contributes to its aims, and what can be learnt for this and similar settings. A realist-informed theory of change was developed by the research team as part of a broader collaboration with other stakeholders. The evaluation will draw on a wide variety of perspectives and data, including programme data and secondary data. This will be supplemented by in-depth interviews and workshops at the end of each cycle to probe the different domains, understand changes to the positions of different actors within the local health system and feedback into improved learning and action in the next cycle. Quantitative data such as verbal autopsy will be analysed for significant trends in health indicators for different population groups. However, the bulk of the data will be qualitative and will be analysed thematically. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics in participatory approaches include a careful focus on the power relationships within the group, such that all groups are given voice and influence, in addition to the usual considerations of informed participation. Within the programme, we will focus on reflexivity, relationship building, two-way learning and learning from failure to reduce power imbalances and mitigate against a blame culture. Local engagement and change will be prioritised in dissemination.

Indexed as

Government ProgramsHealth Services ResearchLearningAutopsyHumansSouth Africahealth policyhealth services administration & managementinternational health servicesorganisation of health servicesprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID32024794
PMCPMC7045152

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.