Dataset Information

Engaging community voices to assess Kenya's strengths and limitations to support a child maltreatment prevention program.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Preventing child maltreatment is a global mission of numerous international organizations, with parent support programs as the critical prevention strategy. In Kenya, 70 % of children are at risk of experiencing abuse and neglect, most often by their parents. Yet, there is a lack of evidence-based parent support programs, and a limited understanding of Kenya's capacity and infrastructures (e.g., policies, funding, service agencies) to support and sustain such programs.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess systematically Kenya's strengths and limitations to implement a parent support program using a mixed-methods study design.

Participants and methods

Twenty-one community stakeholders from Kenya completed the World Health Organization's (WHO) Readiness Assessment for the Prevention of Child Maltreatment to understand Kenya's preparedness to undertake a prevention program. In addition, 91 participants (e.g., parents, community health workers, community leaders) took part in focus group discussions or individual interviews to understand existing support networks around parenting programs.

Results

Kenya's overall 'readiness' score was comparable to the other countries that completed the WHO survey. The survey results revealed Kenya's strengths and limitations across the ten readiness dimensions. Several themes emerged from the focus groups and interviews, including the diverse sources of support for parents, specific programs available for parents, and gaps in services offered.

Conclusions

The results document ways to build upon Kenyan's existing strengths to facilitate implementation of an evidence-based prevention program. These results also highlight the significant need to understand local context when adapting parenting programs for low/middle income countries (LMICs).

SUBMITTER: Shanley JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7855883 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine associations between child maltreatment and health service use, both overall, by type and by the number of types of maltreatment reported.Design, settingCross-sectional, retrospective survey using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire-R2: Adapted Version (Australian Child Maltreatment Study); computer-assisted mobile telephone interviews using random digit dialling, Australia, 9 April - 11 October 2021.ParticipantsAustralians aged 16 years or more. The target sample size was 8500 respondents: 3500 people aged 16-24 years and 1000 respondents each from the five age groups (25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 years or more).Main outcome measuresSelf-reported health service use during the past twelve months: hospital admissions, length of stay, and reasons for admission; and numbers of consultations with health care professionals, overall and by type. Associations between maltreatment and health service use are reported as odds ratios adjusted for age group, gender, socio-economic status, financial hardship (childhood and current), and geographic remoteness.ResultsA total of 8503 participants completed the survey. Respondents who had experienced child maltreatment were significantly more likely than those who had not to report a hospital admission during the preceding twelve months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.66), particularly admission with a mental disorder (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.03-5.6). The likelihood of six or more visits to general practitioners (aOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.87-3.02) or of a consultation with a mental health nurse (aOR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.75-4.06), psychologist (aOR, 2.40; 95% CI, 2.00-2.88), or psychiatrist (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 2.25-4.04) were each higher for people who reported maltreatment during childhood. People who reported three or more maltreatment types were generally most likely to report greater health service use.ConclusionsChild maltreatment has a major impact on health service use. Early, targeted interventions are vital, not only for supporting children directly, but also for their longer term wellbeing and reducing their health system use throughout life.

Project description:BackgroundAchieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations.ObjectiveTo address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together-CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade-offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool.MethodsParticipants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests.ResultsThe results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age.DiscussionThe study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes.Public contributionThe facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community- the study represents their priorities.