A realist review protocol on communications for community engagement in maternal and newborn health programmes in low- and middle-income countries

Dada, Sara; Brún, Aoife De; Banda, Esther Namwaba; Bhattacharya, Sanghita; Mutunga, Zaccheous; Gilmore, Brynne

doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02061-9

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the agreement on the positive implications of CE, the literature relating to which CE approaches are most effective and how to incorporate them across settings is limited ( O’Mara-Eves et al , 2013 ; Dada et al , 2021b ; 2022 ). Proposed frameworks and principles of CE suggest the importance of characteristics such as adaptability, reciprocity, relatability, relationships, respect, trust and transparency ( Noorani and Gubb, 2007 ; Geissler et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 2016 ). Despite the availability of these frameworks for effective communication and the understanding that it is important in health interventions, there is little specific discussion on how communication is used, designed and implemented within CE strategies ( Dada et al , 2021b ; 2022 ; 2023a ). CE and its communications aspects are complex, involving multiple interacting components and spanning a range of levels of involvement ( Gilmore et al , 2023 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding communication in community engagement for maternal and newborn health programmes in low- and middle-income countries: a realist review

Dada,

Aivalli,

De Brún

et al. 2023

Health Policy and Planning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As community engagement (CE) is implemented for sustainable maternal and newborn health (MNH) programming, it is important to determine how these approaches work. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have become a particular focus for MNH CE activities due to their high burden of maternal and neonatal deaths. MNH messaging and communication to engage communities are likely to differ by context, but how these approaches are actually developed and implemented within CE are not well understood. Understanding how communication in CE actually works is vital in the translation of learnings across programmes and to inform future projects. The purpose of this realist review is to describe how, why, to what extent, and for whom communications in CE contributes to MNH programming in LMICs. After searching academic databases, grey literature, and suggested literature from the expert advisory committee, documents were included if they described the CE communications processes/activities used for MNH programming in an LMIC. Relevant documents were assessed for richness (depth of insight) and rigour (trustworthiness and coherence of data/theories). Data were extracted as context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and synthesized into demi-regularities to contribute to theory refinement. After screening 416 records, 45 CMOCs were extracted from 11 documents. This informed five programme theories explaining that communications in CE for an MNH programme work when: communities are actively involved throughout the programme, the messaging and programme are acceptable, communication sources are trusted, the community has a reciprocal relationship with the programme, and the community sees value in the programme. While these findings reflect what is often anecdotally known in CE or acknowledged in communications theory, they have implications for policy, practice and research by highlighting the importance of centering the community’s needs and priorities throughout the stages of developing and implementing communications for CE in MNH.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding communication in community engagement for maternal and newborn health programmes in low- and middle-income countries: a realist review

Dada,

Aivalli,

De Brún

et al. 2023

Health Policy and Planning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The realist review is iterative, making it less linear or rigid than a traditional systematic review. 10,11 The steps of a realist review, demonstrated in Figure 1, are guided by the four approaches to inference-making in realistinformed inquiries: induction, abduction, deduction and retroduction. 12 Inductive thinking involves projecting from what we know to what we do not know and is also applied to identify patterns in the evidence to draw conclusions.…”

Section: The Realist Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Author A: The challenge of determining approaches to richness and rigour (11) When determining the criteria for selecting sources to be included in my realist review and assessing them, I struggled to find detailed examples in the literature of how to go about this. I developed relevance criteria as I would for a traditional systematic review, and built off of this for 'richness' criteria by asking more specific questions about the level of depth or detail the source provided for each of the topic areas of my inclusion criteria.…”

Section: Assessing Rigourmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applying and reporting relevance, richness and rigour in realist evidence appraisals: Advancing key concepts in realist reviews

Dada

Dalkin

Gilmore

et al. 2023

Research Synthesis Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The realist review/synthesis has become an increasingly prominent methodological approach to evidence synthesis that can inform policy and practice. While there are publication standards and guidelines for the conduct of realist reviews, published reviews often provide minimal detail regarding how they have conducted some methodological steps. This includes selecting and appraising evidence sources, which are often considered for their ‘relevance, richness and rigour.’ In contrast to other review approaches, for example, narrative reviews and meta‐analyses, the inclusion criteria and appraisal of evidence within realist reviews depend less on the study's methodological quality and more on its contribution to our understanding of generative causation, uncovered through the process of retroductive theorising. This research brief aims to discuss the current challenges and practices for appraising documents' relevance, richness and rigour and to provide pragmatic suggestions for how realist reviewers can put this into practice.

show abstract

What’s in a name? Unpacking ‘CommunityBlank’ terminology in reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health: a scoping review

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionEngaging the community as actors within reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) programmes (referred to as ‘communityblank’) has seen increased implementation in recent years. While evidence suggests these approaches are effective, terminology (such as ‘communityengagement,’‘communityparticipation,’‘communitymobilisation,’and ‘social accountability’) is often used interchangeably across published literature, contributing to a lack of conceptual clarity in practice. The purpose of this review was to describe and clarify varying uses of these terms in the literature by documenting what authors and implementers report they are doing when they use these terms.MethodsSeven academic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Global Health), two grey literature databases (OAIster, OpenGrey) and relevant organisation websites were searched for documents that described ‘communityblank’ terms in RMNCH interventions. Eligibility criteria included being published between 1975 and 1 October 2021 and reports or studies detailing the activities used in ‘communityblank.’ResultsA total of 9779 unique documents were retrieved and screened, with 173 included for analysis. Twenty-four distinct ‘communityblank’ terms were used across the documents, falling into 11 broader terms. Use of these terms was distributed across time and all six WHO regions, with ‘communitymobilisation’, ‘communityengagement’and ‘communityparticipation’ being the most frequently used terms. While 48 unique activities were described, only 25 activities were mentioned more than twice and 19 of these were attributed to at least three different ‘communityblank’ terms.ConclusionAcross the literature, there is inconsistency in the usage of ‘communityblank’ terms for RMNCH. There is an observed interchangeable use of terms and a lack of descriptions of these terms provided in the literature. There is a need for RMNCH researchers and practitioners to clarify the descriptions reported and improve the documentation of ‘communityblank’implementation. This can contribute to a better sharing of learning within and across communities and to bringing evidence-based practices to scale. Efforts to improve reporting can be supported with the use of standardised monitoring and evaluation processes and indicators. Therefore, it is recommended that future research endeavours clarify the operational definitions of ‘communityblank’ and improve the documentation of its implementation.

show abstract

A realist review protocol on communications for community engagement in maternal and newborn health programmes in low- and middle-income countries

Cited by 7 publications

References 72 publications

Understanding communication in community engagement for maternal and newborn health programmes in low- and middle-income countries: a realist review

Understanding communication in community engagement for maternal and newborn health programmes in low- and middle-income countries: a realist review

Applying and reporting relevance, richness and rigour in realist evidence appraisals: Advancing key concepts in realist reviews

What’s in a name? Unpacking ‘CommunityBlank’ terminology in reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About