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. Similarly, the focus group discussions showed that individuals had both acquired and sustained basic knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer as a result of the CAA program. Participants emphasized the notion that knowledge is fundamental to cervical cancer prevention, and that the information they acquired as a result of their involvement with the CAA intervention is crucial to protecting Salvadorans from HPV and cervical cancer. “So I think one of the things we can do to help prevent it is to learn, right, if there would…it is fundamental and important, as they’ve said, we’ve come to know that, but because they informed us, not because maybe we would name many things, same with the women, at least in the area where I’m from, nobody knows, almost no one discusses uterine cancer.” (female participant) “Entonces creo que una de las maneras para poder ayudar, para poder prevenir, quizás seria informarse verdad, que hubiera, es bien fundamental e importante, como decían ellos nosotros hemos llegado a conocer eso pero porque nos informaron, no porque quizá nombraríamos, muchas cosas, igual la mujer por lo menos en el sector que estoy casi nadi sabe, casi nadie habla de cáncer uterino.” (participante femenina) When asked what caused cervical cancer, several FGD participants responded that it is caused by a sexually transmitted infection called HPV. People understood that HPV is transmitted sexually between men and women, and that both men and women are susceptible to the infection. One respondent further explained that HPV could cause genital warts in addition to cervical cancer. “Others have the understanding of sexual relations, that a man who is infected can harm, right, the woman, vice versa as well, the woman can also harm the man.” (male participant) “Otras tienen el concepto de la relación sexual, un hombre que este contaminado xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx a la mujer, igual viceversa, la mujer también puede dañar al hombre.” (participante masculino) Individuals also recognized that there are mechanisms to prevent HPV infection, most notably vaccination. Although there was some confusion as to whether or not the HPV vaccine is available in El Salvador, participants reported that the vaccine could be used for both girls and boys, and that it is a critical aspect of HPV prevention. While the vaccine is an effective form of HPV prevention, focus group participants noted that it is costly and often inaccessible. As such, they reported additional forms of HPV prevention....
Focus Group Discussions. It was apparent throughout the FGDs that past CAA participants valued their experience in the program. Given the machismo aspect of the Salvadoran culture, many of the women emphasized how important it was to be educated on these issues in order to promote discussion about HPV and cervical cancer prevention in their communities. “Sometimes also the men here in our culture, here the men are machista and they do not like to have much respect for women with these things, so they do not inform themselves…that is why it is important that with these courses that we drop all of that so we talk more openly with our partners, aha, exactly.” (female participant) “A veces también el hombre como aquí en nuestra cultura, aquí el hombre como es machista y aparte el hombre como no le gusta quizá tener mucho con la mujer respecto con estas cosas, entonces ellos no se informan…por eso es importante que con estos cursos que botemos todo eso y podamos hablar con nuestra pareja mas abiertamente, aja, exacto.” (participante femenina) In fact, several women said that participating in the CAA intervention provided them a trusting environment in which to gain the confidence they needed to discuss these issues and better take care of their own health. Numerous participants acknowledged that they chose to participate in the CAA program in order to gain proper knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer. “Perhaps because I wanted to know the truth, I wanted to know what it was about, because I had no real knowledge of any of this, so I wanted to know this, right, I had like let’s call it curiosity, at first, regarding that, since I don’t know I wanted to know what it was about and the truth is that, that’s why and I was given the opportunity to do it, to receive the truth.” (female participant) “Yo quizás, porque quería conocer verdad, quería saber de que se trataba, porque no tenia conocimiento verdad, de nada de eso, entonces este quería saber, verdad xxxxx xxxx digamos por curiosidad, al principio, por eso, como no xxxxx entonces quería saber de que se trataba y la verdad es que, por eso y se me dio la oportunidad de poderlo, poderlo recibir verdad.” (participante femenina) Since some people are embarrassed to talk about these issues, respondents noted that it is only through education and open dialogue that HPV infection and cervical cancer can truly be addressed in El Salvador. The CAA program effectively fosters this discourse by allowing participants to gain knowledge in order to...
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].
Focus Group Discussions. FGDs were conducted with participants of both genders and study arms. The aim was to identify any changes in community norms in relation to food security, knowledge about nutrition, and community attitudes towards dimensions of women's empowerment that may have been attributable to the intervention. Dimensions of empowerment of interest included women’s mobility, women's input into household decision-making, household food allocation, women's autonomy in production, and finances. FGDs comprised seven to nine participants and were stratified by gender and intervention status (Table 1). FGDs were conducted by a moderator and notetaker team, who were gender matched to the focus group participants. One data collector led the discussion and activities while the other took notes and managed disturbances. FGDs were conducted in outdoor courtyards within private household compounds, and privacy from other community members was maintained by the notetaker, who requested that visitors and observers return later. Participants’ consent was sought before recording the discussion The FGDs were structured around three participatory activities followed by eight questions and were designed to be completed within one hour. All activities involved sorting and arranging a deck of 34 illustrated food cards displaying common Bangladeshi foods, as described below. The first two activities were designed to explore changes in food availability and diets over the intervention period. The third activity was designed to identify the value assigned to different types of foods. The activities are described as follows:
