Liberation in a Rural Context:

2021 ◽  
pp. 363-380
Author(s):  
Ellen Eslinger
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Melissa Pearman Fenton ◽  
Larry F. Forthun ◽  
Saprina Aristild ◽  
Katherine B. Vasquez

2021 ◽  
pp. 109019812110575
Author(s):  
Lyen C. Huang ◽  
Jordan E. Johnson ◽  
Josh Bleicher ◽  
Allison N. Blumling ◽  
Mark Savarise ◽  
...  

Background Patients rarely dispose of left-over opioids after surgery. Disposal serves as a primary prevention against misuse, overdose, and diversion. However, current interventions promoting disposal have mixed efficacy. Increasing disposal in rural communities could prevent or reduce the harms caused by prescription opioids. Aims Identify barriers and facilitators to disposal in the rural communities of the United States Mountain West region. Methods We conducted a qualitative description study with 30 participants from Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. We used a phronetic iterative approach combining inductive content and thematic analysis with deductive interpretation through the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM). Results We identified four broad themes: (a) awareness, engagement, and education; (b) low perceived risk associated with nondisposal; (c) deciding to keep left-over opioids for future use; and (d) converting decisions into action. Most participants were aware of the importance of disposal but perceived the risks of nondisposal as low. Participants kept opioids for future use due to uncertainty about their recovery and future treatments, breakdowns in the patient–provider relationship, chronic illness or pain, or potential future injury. The rural context, particularly convenience, cost, and environmental contamination, contributes to decisional burden. Conclusions We identified PAPM stage-specific barriers to disposal of left-over opioids. Future interventions should account for where patients are along the spectrum of deciding to dispose or not dispose as well as promoting harm-reduction strategies for those who choose not to dispose.


Author(s):  
Jean W. Bauer ◽  
Patricia H. Dyk ◽  
Seohee Son ◽  
Elizabeth M. Dolan
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Payne Simon ◽  
Kirsten Scobie ◽  
Phoebe Backler ◽  
Catherine McDowell ◽  
Charles Cotton ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Aviva Tugendhaft ◽  
Marion Danis ◽  
Nicola Christofides ◽  
Kathleen Kahn ◽  
Agnes Erzse ◽  
...  

Background: Globally, as countries move towards universal health coverage (UHC), public participation in decisionmaking is particularly valuable to inform difficult decisions about priority setting and resource allocation. In South Africa (SA), which is moving towards UHC, public participation in decision-making is entrenched in policy documents yet practical applications are lacking. Engagement methods that are deliberative could be useful in ensuring the public participates in the priority setting process that is evidence-based, ethical, legitimate, sustainable and inclusive. Methods modified for the country context may be more relevant and effective. To prepare for such a deliberative process in SA, we aimed to modify a specific deliberative engagement tool – the CHAT (Choosing All Together) tool for use in a rural setting. Methods: Desktop review of published literature and policy documents, as well as 3 focus groups and modified Delphi method were conducted to identify health topics/issues and related interventions appropriate for a rural setting in SA. Our approach involved a high degree of community and policy-maker/expert participation. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Cost information was drawn from various national sources and an existing actuarial model used in previous CHAT exercises was employed to create the board. Results: Based on the outcomes, 7 health topics/issues and related interventions specific for a rural context were identified and costed for inclusion. These include maternal, new-born and reproductive health; child health; woman and child abuse; HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB); lifestyle diseases; access; and malaria. There were variations in priorities between the 3 stakeholder groups, with community-based groups emphasizing issues of access. Violence against women and children and malaria were considered important in the rural context. Conclusion: The CHAT SA board reflects health topics/issues specific for a rural setting in SA and demonstrates some of the context-specific coverage decisions that will need to be made. Methodologies that include participatory principles are useful for the modification of engagement tools like CHAT and can be applied in different country contexts in order to ensure these tools are relevant and acceptable. This could in turn impact the success of the implementation, ultimately ensuring more effective priority setting approaches.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document