Browsing by Author "Denny Mabetha"

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Burden of mortality linked to community-nominated priorities in rural South Africa
    (2021-11-26) Pyry Mattila; Justine Davies; Denny Mabetha; Stephen Tollman; Lucia D’Ambruoso
    Background: Community knowledge is a critical input for relevant health programmes and strategies. How community perceptions of risk reflect the burden of mortality is poorly understood. Objective: To determine the burden of mortality reflecting community-nominated health risk factors in rural South Africa, where a complex health transition is underway. Methods: Three discussion groups (total 48 participants) representing a cross-section of the community nominated health priorities through a Participatory Action Research process. A secondary analysis of Verbal Autopsy (VA) data was performed for deaths in the same community from 1993 to 2015 (n = 14,430). Using population attributable fractions (PAFs) extracted from Global Burden of Disease data for South Africa, deaths were categorised as ‘attributable at least in part’ to community-nominated risk factors if the PAF of the risk factor to the cause of death was >0. We also calculated ‘reducible mortality fractions’ (RMFs), defined as the proportions of each and all community-nominated risk factor(s) relative to all possible risk factors for deaths in the population . Results: Three risk factors were nominated as the most important health concerns locally: alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and lack of safe water. Of all causes of deaths 1993–2015, over 77% (n = 11,143) were attributable at least in part to at least one community-nominated risk factor. Causes of attributable deaths, at least in part, to alcohol abuse were most common (52.6%, n = 7,591), followed by drug abuse (29.3%, n = 4,223), and lack of safe water (11.4%, n = 1,652). In terms of the RMF, alcohol use contributed the largest percentage of all possible risk factors leading to death (13.6%), then lack of safe water (7.0%), and drug abuse (1.3%) . Conclusion: A substantial proportion of deaths are linked to community-nominated risk factors. Community knowledge is a critical input to understand local health risks.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Lessons from community participation in primary health care and water resource governance in South Africa: a narrative review
    (2022) Jennifer Hove; Lucia D’Ambruoso; Kathleen Kahn; Sophie Witter; Maria van der Merwe; Denny Mabetha; Kingsley Temboh; Rhian Twine
    Background: In South Africa, community participation has been embraced through the development of progressive policies to address past inequities. However, limited information is available to understand community involvement in priority setting, planning and decisionmaking in the development and implementation of public services. Objective: This narrative review aims to provide evidence on forms, extents, contexts and dynamics of community participation in primary health care (PHC) and water governance in South Africa and draw cross-cutting lessons. This paper focuses on health and water governance structures, such as health committees, Catchment Management Agencies (CMA), Water User Associations (WUAs), Irrigation Boards (IBs) and Community Management Forums (CMFs). Methods: Articles were sourced from Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, WHO Global Health Library, Global Health and Science Citation Index between 1994 and 2020 reporting on community participation in health and water governance in South Africa. Databases were searched using key terms to identify relevant research articles and grey literature. Twenty-one articles were included and analysed thematically. Results: There is limited evidence on how health committees are functioning in all provinces in South Africa. Existing evidence shows that health committees are not functioning effectively due to lack of clarity on roles, autonomy, power, support, and capacity. There was slow progress in establishment of water governance structures, although these are autonomous and have mechanisms for democratic control, unlike health committees. Participation in CMAs/WUAs/IBs/CMFs is also not effective due to manipulation of spaces by elites, lack of capacity of previously disadvantaged individuals, inadequate incentives, and low commitment to the process by stakeholders. Conclusion: Power and authority in decision-making, resources and accountability are key for effective community participation of marginalized people. Practical guidance is urgently required on how mandated participatory governance structures can be sustained and linked to wider governance systems to improve service delivery.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Opening decision spaces A case study on the opportunities and constraints in the public health sector of Mpumalanga Province South Africa
    (PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE) S Witter; Maria van der Merwe; Rhian Twine; Denny Mabetha; Jennifer Hove; Stephen Tollman; L d'Ambruoso
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Opening discussion spaces a case study on the opportunities and constraints in the Public Health sector od Mpumalanga Province South Africa
    (PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE) S Witter; Maria van der Merwe; Rhian Twine; Denny Mabetha; Jennifer Hove; Stephen Tollman; Lucia D'ambruoso
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Participatory action research to address lack of safe water, a community-nominated health priority in rural South Africa
    (2023-07-27) Jennifer Hove; Denny Mabetha; Maria van der Merwe; Rhian Twine; Kathleen Kahn; Sophie Witter; Lucia D’Ambruoso
    Background Despite international evidence supporting community participation in health for improved health outcomes and more responsive and equitable health systems there is little practical evidence on how to do this. This work sought to understand the process involved in collective implementation of a health-related local action plan developed by multiple stakeholders. Methods Communities, government departments and non-government stakeholders convened in three iterative phases of a participatory action research (PAR) learning cycle. Stakeholders were involved in problem identification, development, and implementation of a local action plan, reflection on action, and reiteration of the process. Participants engaged in reflective exercises, exploring how factors such as power and interest impacted success or failure. Conclusion The process offered new ways of thinking and stakeholders were supported to generate local evidence for action and learning. The process also enabled exploration of how different stakeholders with different levels of power and interest coalesce to design, plan, and act on evidence. Creation of safe spaces was achievable, meanwhile changing stakeholders’ level of power and interest was possible but challenging. This study suggests that when researchers, service providers and communities are connected as legitimate participants in a learning platform with access to information and decision-making, a shift in power and interest may be feasible. Results The local action plan was partially successful, with three out of seven action items achieved. High levels of both power and interest were key factors in the achievement of action items. For the achieved items, stakeholders reported that continuous interactions with one another created a shift in both power and interest through ownership of implementation processes. Participants who possessed significant power and influence were able to leverage resources and connections to overcome obstacles and barriers to progress the plan. Lack of financial support, shifting priorities and insufficient buy-in from stakeholders hindered implementation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Realising radical potential: building community power in primary health care through Participatory Action Research
    (2023-05-17) Denny Mabetha; Temitope Ojewola; Maria van der Merwe; Reflect Mabika; Gerhard Goosen; Jerry Sigudla; Jennifer Hove; Sophie Witter; Lucia D’Ambruoso
    Background While community participation is an established pro-equity approach in Primary Health Care (PHC), it can take many forms, and the central category of power is under-theorised. The objectives were to (a) conduct theory-informed analysis of community power-building in PHC in a setting of structural deprivation and (b) develop practical guidance to support participation as a sustainable PHC component. Methods Stakeholders representing rural communities, government departments and non-governmental organisations engaged through a participatory action research (PAR) process in a rural sub-district in South Africa. Three reiterative cycles of evidence generation, analysis, action, and reflection were progressed. Local health concerns were raised and framed by community stakeholders, who generated new data and evidence with researchers. Dialogue was then initiated between communities and the authorities, with local action plans coproduced, implemented, and monitored. Throughout, efforts were made to shift and share power, and to adapt the process to improve practical, local relevance. We analysed participant and researcher reflections, project documents, and other project data using power-building and power-limiting frameworks. Results Co-constructing evidence among community stakeholders in safe spaces for dialogue and cooperative action-learning built collective capabilities. The authorities embraced the platform as a space to safely engage with communities and the process was taken up in the district health system. Responding to COVID-19, the process was collectively re-designed to include a training package for community health workers (CHWs) in rapid PAR. New skills and competencies, new community and facility-based alliances and explicit recognition of CHW roles, value, and contribution at higher levels of the system were reported following the adaptations. The process was subsequently scaled across the sub-district. Conclusions Community power-building in rural PHC was multidimensional, non-linear, and deeply relational. Collective mindsets and capabilities for joint action and learning were built through a pragmatic, cooperative, adaptive process, creating spaces where people could produce and use evidence to make decisions. Impacts were seen in demand for implementation outside the study setting. We offer a practice framework to expand community power in PHC: (1) prioritising community capability-building, (2) navigating social and institutional contexts, and (3) developing and sustaining authentic learning spaces.