↓ Skip to main content

Participatory approach to design social accountability interventions to improve maternal health services: a case study from the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Overview of attention for article published in Global Health Research and Policy, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Participatory approach to design social accountability interventions to improve maternal health services: a case study from the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Published in
Global Health Research and Policy, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41256-017-0024-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric M. Mafuta, Marjolein A. Dieleman, Leon Essink, Paul N. Khomba, François M. Zioko, Thérèse N. M. Mambu, Patrick K. Kayembe, Tjard de Cock Buning

Abstract

Social accountability (SA) comprises a set of mechanisms aiming to, on the one hand, enable users to raise their concerns about the health services provided to them (voice), and to hold health providers (HPs) accountable for actions and decisions related to the health service provision. On the other hand, they aim to facilitate HPs to take into account users' needs and expectations in providing care. This article describes the development of a SA intervention that aims to improve health services responsiveness in two health zones in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Beneficiaries including men, women, community health workers (CHWs), representatives of the health sector and local authorities were purposively selected and involved in an advisory process using the Dialogue Model in the two health zones: (1) Eight focus group discussions (FGDs) were organized separately during consultation aimed at sharing and discussing results from the situation analysis, and collecting suggestions for improvement, (2) Representatives of participants in previous FGDs were involved in dialogue meetings for prioritizing and integrating suggestions from FGDs, and (3) the integrated suggestions were discussed by research partners and set as intervention components. All the processes were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis. Overall there were 121 participants involved in the process, 51 were female. They provided 48 suggestions. Their suggestions were integrated into six intervention components during dialogue meetings: (1) use CHWs and a health committee for collecting and transmitting community concerns about health services, (2) build the capacity of the community in terms of knowledge and information, (3) involve community leaders through dialogue meetings, (4) improve the attitude of HPs towards voice and the management of voice at health facility level, (5) involve the health service supervisors in community participation and; (6) use other existing interventions. These components were then articulated into three intervention components during programming to: create a formal voice system, introduce dialogue meetings improving enforceability and answerability, and enhance the health providers' responsiveness. The use of the Dialogue Model, a participatory process, allowed beneficiaries to be involved with other community stakeholders having different perspectives and types of knowledge in an advisory process and to articulate their suggestions on a combination of SA intervention components, specific for the two health zones contexts.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 17%
Social Sciences 11 15%
Psychology 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 17 24%