liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Lessons learned from stakeholders in a facilitation intervention targeting neonatal health in Quang Ninh province, Vietnam.
Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, International Maternal and Child Health (IMCH), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, International Maternal and Child Health (IMCH), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Hanoi School of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; School of Health and Social Studies, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden.
Public Health & Environment Department, Institute of Sociology, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, ISSN 1471-2393, E-ISSN 1471-2393, Vol. 13, 234Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: In northern Vietnam the Neonatal health - Knowledge Into Practice (NeoKIP, Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN44599712) trial has evaluated facilitation as a knowledge translation intervention to improve neonatal survival. The results demonstrated that intervention sites, each having an assigned group including local stakeholders supported by a facilitator, lowered the neonatal mortality rate by 50% during the last intervention year compared with control sites. This process evaluation was conducted to identify and describe mechanisms of the NeoKIP intervention based on experiences of facilitators and intervention group members.

METHODS: Four focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with all facilitators at different occasions and 12 FGDs with 6 intervention groups at 2 occasions. Fifteen FGDs were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, translated into English, and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS: Four themes and 17 sub-themes emerged from the 3 FGDs with facilitators, and 5 themes and 18 sub-themes were identified from the 12 FGDs with the intervention groups mirroring the process of, and the barriers to, the intervention. Facilitators and intervention group members concurred that having groups representing various organisations was beneficial. Facilitators were considered important in assembling the groups. The facilitators functioned best if coming from the same geographical area as the groups and if they were able to come to terms with the chair of the groups. However, the facilitators' lack of health knowledge was regarded as a deficit for assisting the groups' assignments. FGD participants experienced the NeoKIP intervention to have impact on the knowledge and behaviour of both intervention group members and the general public, however, they found that the intervention was a slow and time-consuming process. Perceived facilitation barriers were lack of money, inadequate support, and the function of the intervention groups.

CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative process evaluation contributes to explain the improved neonatal survival and why this occurred after a latent period in the NeoKIP project. The used knowledge translation intervention, where facilitators supported multi-stakeholder coalitions with the mandate to impact upon attitudes and behaviour in the communes, has low costs and potential for being scaled-up within existing healthcare systems.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 13, 234
National Category
Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-136135DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-234PubMedID: 24330472OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-136135DiVA: diva2:1085322
Available from: 2017-03-28 Created: 2017-03-28 Last updated: 2017-04-24

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(347 kB)1 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 347 kBChecksum SHA-512
1a7c301eabcdf7722a149027dddde9565d2a6c464823c4c60bcef045ce0fdf2e4ce5cba023b7b008832d1ef0f6be92712d9613f31bca5599d6bdfce83f446090
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
In the same journal
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 1 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 13 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf