ArticleGlobal health action2025
Implementation outcomes of a community dialogue intervention to improve primary care performance in a Ugandan rural health sub-district.
Article in Global health action, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrated knowledge translation: A guide for primary care researchers.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the declaration of Alma Ata, community participation in health services has been promoted in making services responsive to the needs of the people. This requires effective community engagement approaches. Community dialogues have been used to engage communities in design, implementation and evaluation of health activities and interventions.
objectivesThis study evaluated the implementation outcomes of a community dialogue intervention that was intended to improve primary care performance in a health sub-district in rural Uganda.
methodsThis was a mixed methods study using purposively selected key informants and a data collection form. The key informant interviews were conducted in English using a semi-structured interview guide, audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data was analysed using Atlas ti using a framework approach. Quantitative data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet and analysed into frequencies and percentages.
resultsOverall, 196 community dialogues were conducted by all 16 primary care facilities, and the average attendance was 32 (range 16-46). They were found to be appropriate, acceptable and affordable and, therefore, adopted. They were feasible and implemented with fidelity, encountered minimal contextual barriers and were thought to be sustainable. Thirteen context factors enabled implementation (e.g. prior existence of regular outreach activities at each health facility), while two were barriers (e.g. community members' expectations of incentives). The intervention reached all the health facilities within the health sub-district at no direct incremental cost.
conclusionCommunity dialogues can be implemented through integration at no direct incremental cost and with significant reach to the population served with favourable outcomes.
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.