Social Interaction and Social Inclusion in International Rural Health Research

Bourke, Lisa; Anam, Mujibul; Shaburdin, Zubaidah Mohamed; Mitchell, Olivia; Crouch, Alan

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-89594-5_43

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5 Rural populations often experience greater social exclusion due to these factors. 7 Social inclusion, on the other hand, refers to the process of improving the terms for individuals and groups to participate in society through improved access to resources and services, opportunities as well as voice and respect for rights. 5 Achieving UHC in the context of limited resources requires addressing inequities and fostering social inclusion through the design and implementation of health services packages that prioritise the most vulnerable, including rural populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Moving towards social inclusion: Engaging rural voices in priority setting for health

Tugendhaft,

Christofides,

Stacey

et al. 2023

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAchieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations.ObjectiveTo address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together—CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade‐offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool.MethodsParticipants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests.ResultsThe results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age.DiscussionThe study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes.Public ContributionThe facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community‐ the study represents their priorities.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%