“…32 The rural Eastern Cape is also one of the poorest, most underserviced areas in South Africa and 54% of the adult population is unemployed, relying mostly on grants. 35 Grants include the government old age pension (R1985 a month, 96 GBP 2 ) and the child support grant (R460 a month, 22 GBP 3 ). 35,36 Figure 2.Bulungula, rural field-site for the EXTRA project.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…35 Grants include the government old age pension (R1985 a month, 96 GBP 2 ) and the child support grant (R460 a month, 22 GBP 3 ). 35,36 Figure 2.Bulungula, rural field-site for the EXTRA project.…”
Background Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including South Africa, are currently experiencing multiple epidemics: HIV and the rising burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), leading to different patterns of multimorbidity (the occurrence of two or more chronic conditions) than experienced in high income settings. These adversely affect health outcomes, increase patients’ perceived burden of treatment, and impact the workload of self-management. This paper outlines the methods used in a qualitative study exploring burden of treatment among people living with HIV/NCD multimorbidity in South Africa. Methods We undertook a comparative qualitative study to examine the interaction between individuals’ treatment burden (self-management workload) and their capacity to take on this workload, using the dual lenses of Burden of Treatment Theory (BoTT) and Cumulative Complexity Model (CuCoM) to aid conceptualisation of the data. We interviewed 30 people with multimorbidity and 16 carers in rural Eastern Cape and urban Cape Town between February-April 2021. Data was analysed through framework analysis. Findings This paper discusses the methodological procedures considered when conducting qualitative research among people with multimorbidity in low-income settings in South Africa. We highlight the decisions made when developing the research design, recruiting participants, and selecting field-sites. We also explore data analysis processes and reflect on the positionality of the research project and researchers. Conclusion This paper illustrates the decision-making processes conducting this qualitative research and may be helpful in informing future research aiming to qualitatively investigate treatment burden among patients in LMICs.
“…32 The rural Eastern Cape is also one of the poorest, most underserviced areas in South Africa and 54% of the adult population is unemployed, relying mostly on grants. 35 Grants include the government old age pension (R1985 a month, 96 GBP 2 ) and the child support grant (R460 a month, 22 GBP 3 ). 35,36 Figure 2.Bulungula, rural field-site for the EXTRA project.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…35 Grants include the government old age pension (R1985 a month, 96 GBP 2 ) and the child support grant (R460 a month, 22 GBP 3 ). 35,36 Figure 2.Bulungula, rural field-site for the EXTRA project.…”
Background Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including South Africa, are currently experiencing multiple epidemics: HIV and the rising burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), leading to different patterns of multimorbidity (the occurrence of two or more chronic conditions) than experienced in high income settings. These adversely affect health outcomes, increase patients’ perceived burden of treatment, and impact the workload of self-management. This paper outlines the methods used in a qualitative study exploring burden of treatment among people living with HIV/NCD multimorbidity in South Africa. Methods We undertook a comparative qualitative study to examine the interaction between individuals’ treatment burden (self-management workload) and their capacity to take on this workload, using the dual lenses of Burden of Treatment Theory (BoTT) and Cumulative Complexity Model (CuCoM) to aid conceptualisation of the data. We interviewed 30 people with multimorbidity and 16 carers in rural Eastern Cape and urban Cape Town between February-April 2021. Data was analysed through framework analysis. Findings This paper discusses the methodological procedures considered when conducting qualitative research among people with multimorbidity in low-income settings in South Africa. We highlight the decisions made when developing the research design, recruiting participants, and selecting field-sites. We also explore data analysis processes and reflect on the positionality of the research project and researchers. Conclusion This paper illustrates the decision-making processes conducting this qualitative research and may be helpful in informing future research aiming to qualitatively investigate treatment burden among patients in LMICs.
“…Cash transfer programs can take different forms such as conditional cash transfers, unconditional cash transfers and social pensions [8]. Empirical evidence on the development effects of cash transfers remains mixed which investigated the effect of cash transfers or social grants on households' welfare conditions [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Some of these studies underscore the poverty or welfare reducing-effect and some emphasize the equalizing effect of cash transfers on the welfare of the recipients.…”
Section: Literature Review and Theoretical Underpinningsmentioning
Cash transfers have become an important tool for reducing poverty and improving the well-being of households in many developing countries including South Africa. However, cash transfers' effects on household quality of life are still debatable. This study examined the relationship between cash transfers and quality of life, controlling various household characteristics. The study used the 2021 South African General Household Survey with a sample of 1,499 households selected through a stratified random sampling technique. Data were analyzed using the contingency table technique and a Generalized Linear Model. The results showed that cash transfer families had a greater quality of life than non-transfer households. The results of the GLM analysis revealed that public safety, health, infrastructure, access to remittances and population group were important predictors of quality of life among the households in the research. The results also showed that education, economic environment and gender had no significant effect on the households’ quality of life while age group had a minimal effect. The study concludes that cash transfers (both social grants and remittances) have an impact on households’ quality of life. The study’s findings suggest that policymakers should continue to implement cash transfer programs to improve the well-being of households and improve public safety, health, infrastructure, education and the economic environment in the province.
This study explored poverty attribution in terms of socio-economic factors, based on a survey of 1,110 participants living Turkey’s three largest cities, namely Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir. We include the following socio-economic variables: income, subjective class status, subjective destiny perception, education level, political position, gender, marital status, and age. Participants with higher education levels mostly explain poverty using structural reasons whereas participants with lower education levels tend to explain it with fatalistic reasons. Left- wing participants tend to explain poverty in terms of structural factors for reasons whereas right-wing participants tend to give individualistic reasons. Finally, men tend to offer more individualistic attributions of poverty than women do. Individualistic and structuralist approaches agree on several specific policies for reducing poverty whereas the fatalistic approach suggests different policies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
