ArticleHealth research policy and systems2021
Collective reflections on the first cycle of a collaborative learning platform to strengthen rural primary healthcare in Mpumalanga, South Africa.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitators and barriers to patient and public involvement in developing learning health systems within community health services: ascoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Social participation in health - case studies from primary health care in Kosovo.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Leadership, cohesion, and stress in primary care facilities and retention in chronic care in rural northeast South Africa before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- The Meso-Level in Quality Improvement: Perspectives From a Maternal-Neonatal Health Partnership in South Africa.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Article
- Expanding Community Health Worker decision space: learning from a Participatory Action Research training intervention in a rural South African district.Human resources for health · 2023Article
- Realising radical potential: building community power in primary health care through Participatory Action Research.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Participatory action research to address lack of safe water, a community-nominated health priority in rural South Africa.PloS one · 2023Article
- Burden of mortality linked to community-nominated priorities in rural South Africa.Global health action · 2022Article
- 'Voice needs teeth to have bite'! Expanding community-led multisectoral action-learning to address alcohol and drug abuse in rural South Africa.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Providers' definitions of quality and barriers to providing quality care: a qualitative study in rural Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.Journal of global health science · 2021Article
- Developing stakeholder participation to address lack of safe water as a community health concern in a rural province in South Africa.Global health action · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFrontline managers and health service providers are constrained in many contexts from responding to community priorities due to organizational cultures focused on centrally defined outputs and targets. This paper presents an evaluation of the Verbal Autopsy with Participatory Action Research (VAPAR) programme-a collaborative learning platform embedded in the local health system in Mpumalanga, South Africa-for strengthening of rural primary healthcare (PHC) systems. The programme aims to address exclusion from access to health services by generating and acting on research evidence of practical, local relevance.
methodsDrawing on existing links in the provincial and national health systems and applying rapid, participatory evaluation techniques, we evaluated the first action-learning cycle of the VAPAR programme (2017-19). We collected data in three phases: (1) 10 individual interviews with programme stakeholders, including from government departments and parastatals, nongovernmental organizations and local communities; (2) an evaluative/exploratory workshop with provincial and district Department of Health managers; and (3) feedback and discussion of findings during an interactive workshop with national child health experts.
resultsIndividual programme stakeholders described early outcomes relating to effective research and stakeholder engagement, and organization and delivery of services, with potential further contributions to the establishment of an evidence base for local policy and planning, and improved health outcomes. These outcomes were verified with provincial managers. Provincial and national stakeholders identified the potential for VAPAR to support engagement between communities and health authorities for collective planning and implementation of services. Provincial stakeholders proposed that this could be achieved through a two-way integration, with VAPAR stakeholders participating in routine health planning and review activities and frontline health officials being involved in the VAPAR process. Findings were collated into a revised theory of change.
conclusionsThe VAPAR learning platform was regarded as a feasible, acceptable and relevant approach to facilitate cooperative learning and community participation in health systems. The evaluation provides support for a collaborative learning platform within routine health system processes and contributes to the limited evaluative evidence base on embedded health systems research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.