Discussion
The cognitive mapping and focus groups identified influential obstructions to accessing perinatal services. These include lack of financial preparedness, poor service provider attitudes and lack of male involvement. The dialogue recommended increasing spousal awareness of perinatal care and improving service provider attitudes.
In the narrative evaluation, the seven stakeholder groups described a transformative experience that increased their health awareness and strengthened relations with service providers. Our study confirms the feasibility and acceptability of including both community and service provider views on perinatal care and on the obstacles to access perinatal services in this postconflict setting. Systematic reviews of other settings also identified a lack of financial resources for birth preparedness and male involvement and poor service providers' attitudes as obstacles to perinatal care access.33 34
After the deliberative dialogue, the researchers and local partners configured an intervention to improve male support and service provider attitudes based on the deliberative dialogue. They applied for funding for this intervention on a larger scale within Nwoya district. This intervention and its impact are the subjects of a separate report.
A key contribution of this project was the contextualisation of existing knowledge on perinatal care. The literature documents innumerable factors affecting access to perinatal services. The list is too long to be actionable in the short term. FCM identified and weighted the most influential factors in this setting. It included perspectives of seven stakeholder groups to ground this knowledge.
The literature on financial barriers suggests that system changes like universal free health coverage, voucher systems and cash transfer strategies.35 36 These demand financial and logistic resources along with long-term policy commitment, while cash transfers and voucher systems are rarely sustainable.35 36 Our deliberative dialogue recognised the problem of financial shortfall and proposed local alternatives that could be sustainable. It suggested that women might join saving groups and income generation projects.
Addressing service provider attitudes is a challenge. A large literature suggests skill development for providers, quality improvement teams, mentorship and improved working conditions for staff as potential strategies.37 Our study engaged both communities and service providers in evidence-based respectful dialogue that helped both parties to reflect on their attitudes. The narrative evaluation indicates that this led codesign participants to change attitudes towards one other, increasing mutual understanding and respect.
Consistent with our findings, there is growing evidence that engaging men in perinatal care.38–40 A 2018 review of 13 male-inclusive interventions found a positive association with care-seeking and home care practices.38 The interventions included men as part of a broader community engagement. Interventions to increase male involvement should be designed and implemented with care to mitigate potential harmful effects on couple relationship dynamics.38 39 In our study, the deliberative dialogue made quite concrete suggestions, like male community health workers using visual tools to engage men in issues related to pregnancy and childbirth. In the next step of this project, not reported here, we will invite communities to discuss the visual tool’s content.
Our study offers insights into three dynamics that might improve care seeking behaviour in postconflict and other settings: learning and reflecting on evidence, raising awareness and engaging in action and transition from distrust to confidence. A home visit programme in Northern Nigeria generated similar results after households reflected and discussed maternal risk factors and took actions to address them.25 Studies assessing women’s group interventions in South Asia and Africa reported that women found learning through discussion and group reflection was a key to changing health seeking behaviours.41 A 2020 systematic review reported that participatory interventions using collective learning based on reflection and discussion had higher impact on health outcomes at the population level than did classroom teaching–learning style.42
The narrative evaluation reported individual participants in our deliberative dialogue experienced increased awareness, greater inclination to action and a feeling of empowerment. Deliberative dialogue was also an opportunity for stakeholder groups to hear each other’s perspectives, increase mutual respect and search for ways to improve perinatal care access. The dialogue in our study was crucial in shifting community distrust to confidence, as participants took up perinatal services immediately after the dialogue and saw the impact on their decisions.
In Kenya, Zambia and South Africa, deliberative dialogues reportedly created a safe space to discuss family planning methods and promoted a mutual understanding of each stakeholder group’s realities.43 Those dialogue sessions reported a sense of cohesion and, like our case, the authors found that participating in the dialogue was a transformative experience.43 In Tanzania, dialogue grounded social protection knowledge, raised awareness of children’s protection and built community participation and ownership of the issue.44 In Uganda, Zambia and Mozambique, community dialogues triggered increased uptake of children’s health services.45 Trust is a core tenet for any health system46 and, in conflict and postconflict settings, trust is more likely disrupted.47 A recent body of work advocates for participatory approaches in humanitarian crisis settings to increase trust between communities and service providers.48–50
Limitations
This study illustrates the process, feasibility and acceptability of participatory health service improvement in one postconflict setting. The impact thus far refers only to participants involved in the codesign. A follow-up project addresses implementation of the interventions resulting from the codesign and an assessment of their impact.
Translation from Acholi to English almost certainly lost some nuances of the FCM that keyed off the codesign. We tried to minimise this by convening focus groups to unpack the concepts that emerged during cognitive mapping. Deliberative dialogue was an opportunity to revisit the original cognitive mapping concepts in Acholi, involving many of the same stakeholders who generated the concepts in the first place.
The MSC evaluation focused on the changes experienced by the codesign participants. This narrative approach typically emphasises positive changes, although it can also identify unexpected and negative changes. We used the technique strictly to provide insight into the proof-of-concept of feasibility and acceptability to co-design participant’s intervention without extrapolating the extent of the impact on access to services in general. This is the focus of additional research.