Inclusion strategies in multi-stakeholder dialogues: The case of a community-based participatory research on immunization in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) has been used to address health disparities within several contexts by actively engaging communities. Though dialogues are recognized as a medium by which community members and other actors can make their voices heard through processes that support shared-decision making, power asymmetries often impede the achievement of this objective. Traditionally such relationship asymmetries exist between communities, health workers, and other professionals resulting in the exclusion of communities from decision making in participatory practices and dialogues. This study aimed to explore the experiences in the dialogues between different groups within communities, health workers and local government officials in a CBPR project on immunization in Nigeria. We adapted the framework by Elberse et al. (2011) to structure the possible exclusion mechanisms that could exist in dialogues between the three groups and we set up inclusion strategies to diminish the inequalities as much as possible. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is an exploratory and descriptive case study, using qualitative methods. Data was collected through observation and semi-structured interviews (SSI) with dialogue participants. All 24 participants in the multi-stakeholder dialogues were interviewed. Inclusion strategies involved creating enabling circumstances; influencing behaviour; and influencing use of language. Verbal and circumstantial strategies were of limited value in reducing exclusion. Behavioural inclusion strategies created more awareness of the importance of inclusion; and enabled different community stakeholders to direct their influences towards achieving the collective goals of the collaboration. An important learning is that if evidence is used in the dialogues, even when exclusion of certain individuals occurs, the outcomes could still favour them. A key issue is the difference between participation and representation and the need for more efficient ways of carrying out such interactive processes to ensure that the participation of the vulnerable groups is not merely symbolic. The study makes a case for the use of 'boundary spanners' in this dynamic-these are 'elite' individuals (or community champions) who can be a voice for the minorities and who could have the opportunity to influence decision making. CONCLUSION: CBPR can enable local governments to develop effective partnerships with health workers and communities to achieve health-related goals even in the presence of asymmetries in relationships. Inclusion strategies in dialogues can improve participation and enable shared decision making, however exclusion of vulnerable groups may still occur. Intra-community dynamics and socio-cultural contexts can drive exclusion and less privileged community members require proper representation to enable their issues to be captured effectively.

Using participatory action research to improve immunization utilization in areas with pockets of unimmunized children in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, Nigeria adopted the Reaching Every Ward strategy to improve vaccination coverage for children 0-23 months of age. By 2015, Ogun state had full coverage (100%) in 12 of its 20 local government areas, but eight had pockets of unimmunized children, with the highest burden (37%) in Remo North. A participatory action research (PAR) approach was used to facilitate implementation of local solutions to contextual barriers to immunization in Remo North. This article assesses and seeks to explain the outcomes of the PAR implemented in Remo North to understand whether and possibly how it improved immunization utilization. METHODS: The PAR intervention took place from 2016 to 2017. It involved two (4-month) cycles of dialogue and action between community members, frontline health workers and local government officials in two wards of Remo North, facilitated by the research team. The PAR was assessed using a pre/post-intervention-only design with mixed methods. These included household surveys of caregivers of 215 and 213 children, respectively, 25 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in immunization service delivery and 16 focus group discussions with community members. Data were analysed using the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) vaccine hesitancy framework. RESULTS: Collaboration among the three stakeholder groups enabled the development and implementation of solutions to identified problems related to access to and use of immunization services. At endline, assessment by card for children older than 9 months revealed a significant increase in those fully immunized, from 60.7% at baseline to 90.9% (p < .05). A significantly greater number of caregivers visited fixed government health facilities for routine immunization at endline (83.2%) than at baseline (54.2%) (p < .05). The reasons reported by caregivers for improved utilization of routine immunization services were increased community mobilization activities and improved responsiveness of the health workers. Spillover effects into maternal health services enhanced the use of immunization services by caregivers. Spontaneous scale-up of actions occurred across Remo North due to the involvement of local government officials. CONCLUSION: The PAR approach achieved contextual solutions to problems identified by communities. Collection and integration of evidence into discussions/dialogues with stakeholders can lead to change. Leveraging existing structures and resources enhanced effectiveness.

Exploring Factors Influencing Immunization Utilization in Nigeria-A Mixed Methods Study.

Background: In 2005, Nigeria adopted the Reach Every Ward strategy to improve vaccination coverage for children, 0-23 months. By 2015, Ogun state had full coverage in 12 of its 20 local government areas but eight had pockets of unimmunized children, with the highest burden (37%) in Remo-North. This study aimed to identify factors in Remo-North influencing the use of immunization services, in order to inform intervention approaches to tackle barriers to immunization utilization. Methods: We carried out a cross-sectional study using mixed methods including a survey of caregivers of 215 children, 25 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in immunization service delivery and 16 focus group discussions with community men and women (n = 98). Two wards (Ilara and Ipara) were purposively chosen for the study. Data was analyzed using the SAGE Working Group Vaccine Hesitancy model. Results: Only 56 children (32.6%) of the 172 children over 9 months of age had immunization cards available for inspection. Of these, 23 (59.6%) were fully immunized, noticeably higher in Ipara than Ilara. However, when immunization status was assessed by card and recall, 84.9% of the children were assessed as fully immunized. Caregivers in the more rural Ilara had less knowledge of vaccine schedules. The importance of all doses was recognized more by Ipara respondents (95.5%) than in Ilara (75.3%) (p < 0.05). Community links to immunization and household decision-making patterns influenced immunization use in both wards. Migrants and those living in hard-to-reach areas were disadvantaged in both wards. Health service factors like absence of delivery services, shortage of health workers, unavailability of vaccines at scheduled times, and indirect costs of immunization contributed to low utilization. Conclusion: Immunization utilization was influenced by interlinked community and health services issues. Intervention approaches should ensure that communities' priorities are addressed, actors at both levels involved and strategies are adjusted to suit contexts.