Exploring community-based participatory research for household and ambient air pollution projects: insights from key informants.

BACKGROUND: Despite the extensive use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) in health-related projects, there is limited work on how CBPR processes result in outcomes, especially in household and ambient air pollution (HAAP) research. This study explores the reflections of key informants on factors that shape the implementation and outcomes of CBPR in HAAP projects. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 key stakeholders, including academic researchers, non-governmental organisation administrators, a policymaker, and community members. All interviewees have experience in CBPR projects. Interviews were analysed using framework analysis, and findings were mapped to Wallerstein et al.'s CBPR conceptual model, which consists of four constructs: context, partnership processes, intervention and research, and outcomes. RESULTS: The findings are described under two main categories: 'barriers to participation' and 'good practices for effective CBPR design and implementation'. Relevant sub-categories were barriers at the structural, research, community, and individual levels. Suggestions for good practices included respect, cultural humility, trust, effective communication, suitable and affordable interventions such as improved cookstoves, appropriate participatory research tools, and gratuity for the community's time. CONCLUSION: Key informants' perspectives identified factors supported by the CBPR model to inform the design and implementation of the CBPR approach. The add-ons to some of the model's factors, such as intra-community dynamics, give value to the informants' knowledge to support community-research partnerships and improve outcomes in HAAP intervention projects. Addressing these factors at the design stage and reporting CBPR evaluation could deepen the understanding of community-research partnerships.

'It just wasn't going to be heard': A mixed methods study to compare different ways of involving people with diabetes and health-care professionals in health intervention research.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend involving intervention users in the intervention development process. However, there is limited guidance on how to involve users in a meaningful and effective way. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this Study within a trial was to compare participants' experiences of taking part in one of three types of consensus meetings-people with diabetes-only, combined people with diabetes and health-care professionals (HCPs) or HCP-only meeting. DESIGN: The study used a mixed methods convergent design. Quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (observation notes and semi-structured telephone interviews) data were collected to explore participants' experiences. A triangulation protocol was used to compare quantitative and qualitative findings. PARTICIPANTS: People with diabetes (recruited via multiple strategies) were randomly assigned to attend the people with diabetes or combined meeting. HCPs (recruited through professional networks) attended the HCP or combined meeting based on their availability. RESULTS: Sixteen people with diabetes and 15 HCPs attended meetings, of whom 18 participated in a telephone interview. Participants' questionnaire responses suggested similar positive experiences across the three meetings. Observation and semi-structured interviews highlighted differences experienced by participants in the combined meeting relating to: perceived lack of common ground; feeling empowered versus undervalued; needing to feel safe and going off task to fill the void. CONCLUSIONS: The qualitative theme 'needing to feel safe' may explain the dissonance (disagreement) between quantitative and qualitative data. In this study, involving patients and HCPs simultaneously in a consensus process was not found to be as suitable as involving each stakeholder group separately.

Improved cookstoves to reduce household air pollution exposure in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review of intervention studies.

Household air pollution (HAP), primarily from biomass fuels used for cooking, is associated with adverse health outcomes and premature mortality. It affects almost half of the world's population, especially in low-income and low-resourced communities. However, many of the 'improved' biomass cookstoves (ICS) aimed at reducing HAP lack empirical evidence of pollutant reduction and reliability in the field. A scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute framework was systematically conducted to explore and analyse the characteristics of cookstoves to assess the ICS available to meet the socio-economic and health needs of households in sub-Sahara Africa (sSA). The review searched Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Global Health Database on OVID, BASE, and conducted a grey literature search from 2014 to 2022 for all field-based ICS studies. In addition, user perspectives were explored for cookstoves analysed as available, affordable, and effective in reducing harmful biomass emissions. The search returned 1984 records. Thirty-three references containing 23 ICS brands were included. The cookstoves were analysed into seven categories: (1) efficiency in HAP reduction, (2) availability, (3) affordability, (4) sustainability, (5) safety, (6) health outcomes, and (7) user experience. Most (86.9%) of the improved cookstoves showed a reduction in harmful emission levels compared to the traditional three-stone fire. However, the levels were higher than the WHO-recommended safe levels. Only nine were priced below 40 USD. Users placed emphasis on cookstoves' suitability for cooking, fuel and time savings, safety, and price. Equality in cooking-related gender roles and psychosocial benefits were also reported. The review demonstrated limited field testing, a lack of evidence of ICS emissions in real-life settings in sSA, heterogeneity in emission measurements, and incomplete descriptions of ICS and kitchen features. Gender differences in exposure and psychosocial benefits were also reported. The review recommends improved cookstove promotion alongside additional measures to reduce HAP at a cost affordable to low-resource households. Future research should focus on detailed reporting of study parameters to facilitate effective comparison of ICS performance in different social settings with different local foods and fuel types. Finally, a more community-based approach is needed to assess and ensure user voices are represented in HAP intervention studies, including designing the cookstoves.

Physical and mental illness comorbidity among individuals with frequent self-harm episodes: A mixed-methods study.

Background: Research has indicated an increased risk of self-harm repetition and suicide among individuals with frequent self-harm episodes. Co-occurring physical and mental illness further increases the risk of self-harm and suicide. However, the association between this co-occurrence and frequent self-harm episodes is not well understood. The objectives of the study were (a) to examine the sociodemographic and clinical profile of individuals with frequent self-harm (regardless of suicidal intent) episodes and, (b) the association between physical and mental illness comorbidity, self-harm repetition, highly lethal self-harm methods, and suicide intent. Methods: The study included consecutive patients with five or more self-harm presentations to Emergency Departments across three general hospitals in the Republic of Ireland. The study included file reviews (n = 183) and semi-structured interviews (n = 36). Multivariate logistic regression models and independent samples t-tests were used to test the association between the sociodemographic and physical and mental disorders comorbidity on highly lethal self-harm methods and suicidal intent, respectively. Thematic analysis was applied to identify themes related to physical and mental illness comorbidity and frequent self-harm repetition. Findings: The majority of individuals with frequent self-harm episodes were female (59.6%), single (56.1%), and unemployed (57.4%). The predominant current self-harm method was drug overdose (60%). Almost 90% of the participants had history of a mental or behavioral disorder, and 56.8% had recent physical illness. The most common psychiatric diagnoses were alcohol use disorders (51.1%), borderline personality disorder (44.0%), and major depressive disorder (37.8%). Male gender (OR = 2.89) and alcohol abuse (OR = 2.64) predicted the risk of a highly lethal self-harm method. Suicide intent was significantly higher among those with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (t = 2.43; p = 0.020). Major qualitative themes were (a) the functional meaning of self-harm (b) self-harm comorbidity (c) family psychiatric history and (d) contacts with mental health services. Participants described experiencing an uncontrollable self-harm urge, and self-harm was referred to as a way to get relief from emotional pain or self-punishment to cope with anger and stressors. Conclusion: Physical and mental illness comorbidity was high among individuals with frequent self-harm episodes. Male gender and alcohol abuse were associated with highly lethal self-harm methods. The mental and physical illness comorbidity of individuals with frequent self-harm episodes should be addressed via a biopsychosocial assessment and subsequent indicated treatment interventions.

Do improved biomass cookstove interventions improve indoor air quality and blood pressure? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the most recent evidence to examine whether use of improved biomass cookstoves in households in low-middle income countries results in reduction in mean concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter of size 2.5 µm (PM2.5) in the cooking area, as well as reduction in mean systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of adults using the cookstoves when compared to adults who use traditional three stone fire or traditional biomass cookstoves. METHODS: We searched databases of scientific and grey literature. We included studies if published between January 2012 and June 2021, reported impact of ICS interventions in non-pregnant adults in low/middle-income countries, and reported post-intervention results along with baseline of traditional cookstoves. Outcomes included 24- or 48-h averages of kitchen area PM2.5, CO, mean SBP and DBP. Meta-analyses estimated weighted mean differences between baseline and post-intervention values for all outcome measures. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included; ten contributed estimates for HAP and four for BP. Interventions lead to significant reductions in PM2.5 (-0.73 mg/m3, 95% CI: -1.33, -0.13), CO (-8.37 ppm, 95%CI: -13.20, -3.54) and SBP (-2.82 mmHg, 95% CI: -5.53, -0.11); and a non-significant reduction in DBP (-0.80 mmHg, 95%CI: -2.33, 0.73), when compared to baseline of traditional cookstoves. Except for DBP, greatest reductions in all outcomes came from standard combustion ICS with a chimney, compared to ICS without a chimney and advanced combustion ICS. CONCLUSION: Among the reviewed biomass stove types, ICS with a chimney feature resulted in greatest reductions in HAP and BP.

Which Biomass Stove(s) Capable of Reducing Household Air Pollution Are Available to the Poorest Communities Globally?

Globally, household and ambient air pollution (HAAP) leads to approximately seven million premature deaths per year. One of the main sources of household air pollution (HAP) is the traditional stove. So-called improved cookstoves (ICS) do not reduce emissions to levels that benefit health, but the poorest communities are unlikely to have access to cleaner cooking in the medium term. Therefore, ICS are being promoted as an intermediate step. This paper summarises the current evidence on the ICS available to the global poorest, utilising data from the Clean Cookstoves Catalog and systematic review evidence from the field. The cheapest stoves offer little reduction in HAP. Only one ICS, available at US$5 or less, (the canarumwe) minimally reduced pollutants based on ISO testing standards and no studies included in the systematic reviews reported tested this stove in the field. We recommend field testing all ICS as standard, and clear information on stove characteristics, sustainability, safety, emissions efficiency, in-field performance, affordability, availability in different settings, and the ability of the stove to meet community cooking needs. In addition, ICS should be promoted alongside a suite of measures, including improved ventilation and facilities to dry wood, to further reduce the pollutant levels.

Correction to: Development of an intervention to facilitate implementation and uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Development of an intervention to facilitate implementation and uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening.

BACKGROUND: 'Implementation interventions' refer to methods used to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical interventions such as diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). DRS is effective, yet uptake is often suboptimal. Despite most routine management taking place in primary care and the central role of health care professionals (HCP) in referring to DRS, few interventions have been developed for primary care. We aimed to develop a multifaceted intervention targeting both professionals and patients to improve DRS uptake as an example of a systematic development process combining theory, stakeholder involvement, and evidence. METHODS: First, we identified target behaviours through an audit in primary care of screening attendance. Second, we interviewed patients (n = 47) and HCP (n = 30), to identify determinants of uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework, mapping these to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to develop intervention content. Thirdly, we conducted semi-structured consensus groups with stakeholders, specifically users of the intervention, i.e. patients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 16), regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and local relevance of selected BCTs and potential delivery modes. We consulted representatives from the national DRS programme to check intervention 'fit' with existing processes. We applied the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side effects, and equity) to select the final intervention components, drawing on findings from the previous steps, and a rapid evidence review of operationalised BCT effectiveness. RESULTS: We identified potentially modifiable target behaviours at the patient (consent, attendance) and professional (registration) level. Patient barriers to consent/attendance included confusion between screening and routine eye checks, and fear of a negative result. Enablers included a recommendation from friends/family or professionals and recognising screening importance. Professional barriers to registration included the time to register patients and a lack of readily available information on uptake in their local area/practice. Most operationalised BCTs were acceptable to patients and HCPs while the response to feasibility varied. After considering APEASE, the core intervention, incorporating a range of BCTs, involved audit/feedback, electronic prompts targeting professionals, HCP-endorsed reminders (face-to-face, by phone and letter), and an information leaflet for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Using the example of an intervention to improve DRS uptake, this study illustrates an approach to integrate theory with user involvement. This process highlighted tensions between theory-informed and stakeholder suggestions, and the need to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)/BCT structure flexibly. The final intervention draws on the trusted professional-patient relationship, leveraging existing services to enhance implementation of the DRS programme. Intervention feasibility in primary care will be evaluated in a randomised cluster pilot trial.