Focus Group Discussions. FGDs were conducted at the three health facilities selected in Senegal’s action plan (two hospitals and one health center); three in Guinea (three health centers); five in Togo (two hospitals, two health centers, and the Association Togolaise pour le Bien-Être Familial (ATBEF) clinic); and four in Burkina Faso (one university teaching hospital and three health centers). A total of 90 service providers participated in the FGDs: Senegal (15), Guinea (18), Togo (27), and Burkina Faso (30) (Table 3). Table 3: Focus Group Discussions Conducted in Each Country Country Number of Facilities Target Number of Facilities Total FGD Participants Guinea 3 3 18 Togo 4 4 27 Burkina Faso 4 4 30 Total 13 14 90 FGDs were conducted with all cadres of service providers in maternity and PAC units at each of the health facilities selected by the country teams for implementation of the action plans. These included OB/GYNs, medical officers, nurses, midwives, auxiliary nurses, and maternity assistants who were providing PAC, FP, and maternity services before, during, and after implementation of the action plans. Attempts were made to recruit at least two health care providers with the same designation to enable good representation of the different health care provider cadres that provided the PAC-FP services. Each FGD was convened at a venue where there was unlikely to be interruption or excessive noise interference and was convenient to participants. Each discussion lasted between an hour and a half and two hours, and consisted of six to ten participants of various cadres. Discussions commenced with introductions and clarifications about the purpose and procedures of the focus group. Participants were briefed on the need for confidentiality and were asked to participate through an informed consent process which outlined the investigators’ commitment to confidentiality. E2A’s regional consultant facilitated the FGDs. Prior to the FGDs, each participant was requested to complete an FGD attendance form to provide his or her name, professional designation, and length of time he or she had been providing PAC and/or FP services at the facility. Participants were assured of confidentiality, right to withdraw from the FGD, and to decline to respond to any questions. Identification numbers were allocated to each participant, which were matched with the names/designations on the FGD participant attendance form for reference during data analysis. Each FGD was facilitated with a guide that c...
Focus Group Discussions. During the focus groups, numerous participants reported that both men and women were at risk for HPV. One individual emphasized that people living in rural areas had an even higher risk for HPV infection and cervical cancer due to the limited information available in those places. Despite this consensus, however, one woman suggested that some people believe if they feel fine, they are not at risk for the disease. “I think that yes, there are people who do not feel anything, they think that there cannot be a risk of getting cancer.” (female participant) “Yo pienso que si, hay personas de que si no sienten nada piensan que no puede xxxxx un, un riesgo de contraer un cáncer.” (participante femenina) Considering that preventive medicine is not widely available in El Salvador, many women do not seek medical care until symptoms present and the problem becomes acute. “Yes, the ignorance like with almost any disease, not only this one, many times we have the disease and since sometimes there is no pain, sometimes there are no initial symptoms and they’re, or sometimes it hurts and we leave it until things have gotten very difficult, they are already very prepared…there is not a preventive culture here.” (female participant) “Si, la ignorancia como casi siempre para cualquier enfermedad, no solamente con esta, muchas veces tenemos la enfermedad y como a veces no empiezan con xxxxx, a veces no hay síntomas iniciales y están, o a veces duela y si dejamos, hasta que y alas cosas se hacen bien difíciles, ya están bien preparadas…no hay una cultura preventiva aquí.” (participante femenina) Further, some women find the Pap smear exam to be embarrassing, and they become fearful of it. As a result, women’s risk increases since they are not consistently obtaining screening to prevent cervical cancer. “We see that they are embarrassed to get it and there are some who are fearful of getting it done, because I know many women and they are afraid of getting it done.” (female participant) “Se ve que lo hacen por pena y hay unas que tienen miedo de hacérselo, porque yo conozco bastante mujeres y ellas tienen miedo de hacérselo.” (participante femenina) Another significant topic impacting risk, which was discussed extensively throughout the focus groups, was the idea of multiple partnering. Individuals noted that having multiple sexual partners increases HPV risk. However, they noted that the machismo culture in El Salvador facilitates men having multiple partners, which increases...
Focus Group Discussions. Focus group participants highlighted the fact that things like reproductive anatomy and condom were rarely discussed in El Salvador in the past. In fact, condoms were not available on the shelves in pharmacies or supermarkets, and people would have to speak privately with clerks to ask if they had condoms available for purchase. Fortunately, the culture is beginning to change; there is more open discussion surrounding reproductive health and condoms are now available for free at health clinics and hospitals and for purchase from stores, supermarkets, and pharmacies throughout the country. “Talking about the penis was something that you didn’t do in schools, even less in homes, and even give it a nickname to avoid saying what it’s actually called. Well, I say what do you call it, ‘la tontona’, and it has its real name, it is called the man, Pedrito, or things like this as to not present the reality of its true name, always being a barrier of not wanting to touch those names. I think even those who use condoms have been there, before going to buy a condom we would have to make sure a friend was working in the pharmacy and tell him in private that I need a condom, ah okay. Today they are on hand and in public view in the supermarkets, even the women, like the men, can grab it and put the box there to buy. I saw a girl grab three boxes one day when I was at the supermarket…” (male participant) “Hablar del pene era algo que no se tocaba ni en las escuelas ni mucho menos en el hogar e inclusive hasta ponerle sobrenombre para no decir la realidad de como se llama. Pues yo digo que como se llama, la tontona, y tiene su verdadero nombre, como se llama el xxxxx, Xxxxxxx o cosas así para no presentar la realidad de cual es el verdadero nombre, siempre ha habido una xxxxxxx de no querer tocar esos nombres, inclusive creo que todos los que usan xxxxxx hemos pasado por eso, de que antes para ir a comprar un preservativo teníamos que hacerlo con el amigo que esta en la farmacia y decirle en secreto necesito un preservativo, ah okay. Hoy están a la mano y están a la vista publica, en los supermercados, tanto la mujer como el hombre lo agarran y ponen la cajita ahí para comprar. Yo vi como una muchacha agarro como tres cajitas, un día que estaba en el supermercado…” (participante masculino) Although some youth are apparently using condoms to prevent pregnancy, increased availability is not necessarily associated with increased use. In fact, several participants in the focu...
Focus Group Discussions. Done in groups of two or three within the FGDs, the drawn pictures of latrines all shared many similarities. As can be expected, it was emphasized that all of these latrines are separate from the boys’ latrines. All contain water, paper, a trashcan and washbasin with soap for hand washing. Many of the latrines also contain a fetching cup and windows for ventilation; one group specifically wanted a shower connected to the latrines to further their personal hygiene.
Focus Group Discussions. Understanding Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. International League Against Epilepsy. (2003). The History and Stigma of Epilepsy. Epilepsia, 44, 12-14. doi: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.44.s.6.2.x Xxxxxxxx, X. X. (2010). Broadband adoption in and use in America Omnibus Broadband Initiative (OBI) Working Paper Series: Federal Communications Commission. Xxxxxxx, C.A., Xxxxx, M.R., Maniunath, R., Xxxxxxx, X.X., Xxxxxx, X.X., Xxxxx, X.X., Xxxx-Xxxxx, X.X., Xxxxxxx, X.X., Xxxxxxx, X.X. (2008). Associations of non- adherence to antiepileptic drugs and seizures, quality of life, and productivity: survey of patients with epilepsy and physicians. Epilepsy Behavior, 13(2), 316- 322. Xxxxxx, A., Snape, D., & Xxxxx, G. A. (2009). Determinants of Quality of Life in People with Epilepsy. Neurologic Clinics, 27(4), 843-863. doi: xxxx://xx.xxx.xxx/10.1016/j.ncl.2009.06.003 Xxxxxx, X. X., Xxxxxxxxxxx-Xxxxxxxxx, X. X. x., & Xxxxx, M. (2005). Patients’ perceived barriers to active self-management of chronic conditions. Patient Education and Counseling, 57(3), 300-307. doi: xxxx://xx.xxx.xxx/10.1016/j.pec.2004.08.004 Xxxxxxxx, J. (2011). Apple iOS is tightly closed, Android is mostly open February 22, 2011, from xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/blog/mobile-news/apple-ios-is-tightly-closed- android-is-mostly-open/1047 Xxxxxxx, X.X., Xxxx, M.C., Xxxxxx, V., Xxxxx, X.X. (2012). Accounting for comorbidity in assessing the burden of epilepsy among US adults: results from the National Comorbitidy Study Replication (NCS-R) Molecular Psychiatry, 17(7), 748-758. Kobau, R., & Dilorio, C. (2003). Epilepsy self-management: a comparison of self- efficacy and outcome expectancy for medication adherence and lifestyle behaviors among people with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 4(3), 217-225. doi: xxxx://xx.xxx.xxx/10.1016/S1525-5050(03)00057-X Kobau, R., Luncheon, C., Zack, M. M., Xxxxxx, R., & Price, P. H. (2012). Satisfaction with life domains in people with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 25(4), 546-551. doi: xxxx://xx.xxx.xxx/10.1016/j.yebeh.2012.09.013 Kobau, R., Yao-Hua, L., Zack, M. M., Xxxxxxx, S., & Xxxxxxx, X. X. (2012). Epilepsy in Adults and Access to Care -- Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, 0000. (cover story). MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 61(45), 909-913. Kobau, R., Zahran, H., Xxxxxxx, X. X., Xxxx, M. M., Henry, T. R., Xxxxxxxxx, S. C., & Price, P. H. (2008). Epilepsy surveillance among adults--19 States, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2005. MMWR Surveill Summ, 5...
Focus Group Discussions. Participants and recruitment. In order to explore participant perspectives of the Legacy experience, CDC contracted with RTI International to conduct focus group interviews with intervention participants (RTI Project Number 0206030.011). The use of focus groups allowed researchers to gain a broad and interactive understanding of participants’ attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions (Hennink, Hutter, & Xxxxxx, 2011d). Researchers conducted a total of twenty-one focus groups from 2005 to 2008. Three waves were conducted in Los Angeles for a total of eight focus groups; four waves were conducted in Miami for a total of thirteen focus groups. The researchers utilized purposive sampling to recruit information-rich individuals (Hennink, Hutter, & Xxxxxx, 2011g) from the main-study intervention participants. Use of this type of sampling allowed researchers to recruit individuals with specific characteristics (i.e., varying levels of attendance, recent versus older graduates) who could provide detailed understanding of the research issues (e.g., changes in parenting) (Hennink et al., 2011g). Selection criteria for the focus groups varied by wave and site (refer to Table 1 for the frequency of participants by category and site). The first wave in Los Angles and the first and second waves in Miami centered on three levels of participation: engaged, regular attenders; unengaged, regular attenders; and sporadic attenders. The second wave in Los Angles included the original three categories, as well as the addition of a graduates group based on the conclusion of the first round of intervention groups. The third wave in Los Angeles consisted of newer graduates and older graduates, based on length of time since graduation from the program. Participants whose groups ended in the previous year were placed in the newer graduates focus group, and those whose group ended more than a year prior were placed in the older graduates focus group. Previous participation in focus groups dictated the third wave in Miami and included previous focus group participants and two sections, A and B, of new focus group participants. The fourth and final wave of Miami consisted of two groups: newer graduates and older graduates. RTI International coordinated with intervention staff in order to recruit participants for the focus groups. RTI International selected a target of eight participants for each focus group, and over-recruited by twenty percent in order to meet the target number. RTI Interna...
Focus Group Discussions. Focus Group Discussions were organized with participants from direct and indirect stakeholders of fish sub-sector consisting representatives from Hatchery owners, Nursery owners, Farmers, service providers (both technical and financial) and other relevant actors in the sector. From the FGD the study team has gathered a clear picture of the current market scenario relevant to purpose of the study.
Focus Group Discussions. The analysis and results below are presented in accordance with the list of questions discussed during the focus group sessions, with answers sorted by the type of MARP. The answers were combined and arranged by frequency of occurrence. Some of the points in the lists were said only by one participant. We attempted to keep reported answers in line with respondents’ vocabulary and specificity of speech. A total of eleven FGD were conducted among MARPs who are currently being treated or have been treated for TB, to investigate the determinants of adherence to diagnostic procedure and treatment for TB. Participants of FGDs were the following representatives of most at risk populations (MARP): 30 injecting drug users (IDU), 13 sex workers (SW), 14 men who have sex with men (MSM), and 19 people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV). Two members of the group were from Temirtau (12 IDU and 9 PLHIV), and the rest were from Almaty.
Focus Group Discussions. The focus group discussion guide was developed from previous literature on maternal health in marginalized populations. Input from the research teams was incorporated into the guide. The questions on the guide were pilot tested on one woman from the community and then two different groups of women from community. With each pilot test, the wording of the questions was altered. Also, the facilitator’s technique was critiqued until the concept of probing was fully understood and executed. The data for both the focus groups and interviews was recorded on a digital recorder and notes were taken. Challenges to data collection included: cultural restrictions on leaving the house for women who were up to six months postnatal, the loss of one of the recordings, and non-mingling of women from neighboring villages. Also, the female research assistants were not willing to conduct a focus group with men due to cultural restrictions. For both the focus group discussions and the in-depth interviews, issues of confidentiality, minimization of harm, and the benefits of the research were all considered when designing the study. Confidentiality was addressed through location selection by ensuring that the environment was suitable to the interviewees as well as training the research team in the importance of confidentiality. Meeting participants on their schedule and in their preferred location and making sure that participants knew it was voluntary addressed minimizing harm. The research will be used by VGKK to address the issues of The Safe Motherhood program and the information will be passed on to community leaders. In-depth Interview The interview guide developed for the interviews mirrored the making of the focus group discussion, except that the responses from the focus groups were used to frame the guide, instead of the literature. The interview guide was pilot tested on women in the community and staff at VGKK. Issues of complex questions that were not typical in the culture became apparent in the piloting. A new method was developed to encourage longer and more detailed responses (see Figure Four). The issues in data collection included forest department restriction on access to distant villages, cultural traditions that placed women in their maternal homes for the postnatal period, and language barriers within the research team. Figure Four
Focus Group Discussions. FGDs aimed to gain detail about the concerns noted in XXXx. They were held in four different communities (two intervention and two control) once XXXx were complete. Two were held per community, one with unmarried women and one with women married for any time period as we could not get enough participants to hold one per life stage. RAs called contacts in communities to recruit potential participants, met women at a private community location, and gathered demographic information one-on-one from participants prior to commencing the FGD collectively. During the FGDs, women were asked to discuss concerns related to urination, defecation and menstruation; were probed about night, monsoon, pregnancy, and dependents; and were asked to discuss noted concerns in detail as a group. We specifically asked about concerns that were mentioned in the XXXx if not mentioned organically during the FGDs. The RAs conducted FGDs in Oriya, one facilitating and the other taking notes. Analysis XXXx and FGDs were digitally recorded and translated directly into English. RAs listed out all concerns noted during the FLI and then listened to full recordings to verify initial lists. The list items were collated by the primary author (BC) and used as a preliminary codebook. BC then read all transcripts, applied those list-based codes and created others as needed using MAXQDA analytic software. BC then independently created lists for each participant and compared them to originals created by the RAs for consistency. Frequencies of concerns by participant strata and toilet ownership were then generated. We applied thematic analysis to understand concerns expressed by participants in XXXx and FGDs. It uses a range of tools to examine themes, present the voiced experiences of participants, and build conceptual models[28]. For each concern, we aggregated coded text into summative tables to review collectively and memo. Tables were then sorted by participant type to identify variation by strata and further memos were created to inform results reported[28].
