ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Adapting the deliberative democracy approach to LMIC settings: a case study in Nigeria.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Developing sustainable health promotion interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faces challenges due to limited infrastructure and diverse cultural contexts. Community engagement is essential for effective health promotion, but higher intensity strategies may be infeasible in under-resourced settings. This study aimed to adapt the Mentor Mother (MM) HIV peer program to include HPV self-screening for Nigerian women living with HIV using deliberative democracy (DD) principles. Methods: The study utilized a tiered DD approach to explore stakeholders' perspectives on feasible and sustainable strategies for the MM program. The process included two tiers: an initial deliberation among the research team and a subsequent community deliberation. The research team deliberation involved online sessions to identify feasible program adaptations as well as a model deliberation process. The community deliberation included a diverse group of stakeholders who participated in a two-day conference, engaging in small and large group discussions to reach consensus on program adaptations. Results: The research team identified two options for HPV sample collection and result delivery. The community deliberation reached consensus on both questions. For sample collection, the preferred option was for MMs to educate women in organized groups and transport samples to the laboratory. For result delivery, the consensus was for MMs to return all results to patients after additional training. The process demonstrated high levels of participant satisfaction, increased self-efficacy in explaining HPV screening, and adherence to DD principles of inclusivity, reasoned justification, and societal perspective. Conclusion: The DD process was feasible and effective in adapting the MM program for HPV screening in Nigeria. The approach empowered community members and enhanced the intervention's development. However, adaptations were necessary to address cultural norms and logistical challenges. The study highlights the potential of DD to inform health promotion strategies in LMICs, ensuring interventions are culturally appropriate and sustainable.
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.