Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31948423›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Acceptability of a community cardiovascular disease prevention programme in Mukono and Buikwe districts in Uganda: a qualitative study.

Rawlance Ndejjo, Geofrey Musinguzi, Fred Nuwaha, Rhoda K Wanyenze, Hilde Bastiaens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Task-Shifting: Can Community Health Workers Be Part of the Solution to an Inactive Nation?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rawlance NdejjoDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. rndejjo@musph.ac.ug.
Geofrey MusinguziDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Fred NuwahaDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Rhoda K WanyenzeDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Hilde BastiaensDepartment of Primary and Interdisciplinary care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 733356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are on the rise in many low-and middle-income countries where 80% of related deaths are registered. Community CVD prevention programmes utilizing self-care approaches have shown promise in contributing to population level reduction of risk factors. However, the acceptability of these programmes, which affects their uptake and effectiveness, is unknown including in the sub-Saharan Africa context. This study used the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability to explore the prospective acceptability of a community CVD prevention programme in Mukono and Buikwe districts in Uganda.

methodsThis qualitative descriptive study was conducted in March 2019 among community health workers (CHWs), who would implement the intervention and community members, the intervention recipients, using eight focus group discussions. All discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically guided by the theoretical framework.

resultsCHWs and community members reported high eagerness to participate in the programme. Whereas CHWs had implemented similar community programmes and cited health promotion as their role, community members looked forward to health services being brought nearer to them. Although the intervention was preventive in nature, CHWs and community members expressed high interest in treatments for risk factors and were skeptical about the health system capacity to deliver them. CHWs anticipated barriers in mobilising communities who they said sometimes may not be cooperative while community members were concerned about failing to access treatment and support services after screening for risk factors. The major cost to CHWs and community members for engaging in the intervention was time that they would have dedicated to income generating activities and social events though CHWs also had the extra burden of being exemplary. CHWs were confident in their ability to deliver the intervention as prescribed if well trained, supported and supervised, and community members felt that if provided sufficient information and supported by CHWs, they could change their behaviours.

conclusionsThe community CVD prevention programme was highly acceptable among CHWs and community members in Mukono and Buikwe districts of Uganda amidst a few burdens and opportunity costs. Suggestions made by study participants to improve programme effectiveness informed programme design and implementation for impact.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCommunity Health ServicesCommunity Health WorkersFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationUgandaAcceptabilityCardiovascular diseaseCommunityCommunity health workersUganda

Identifiers

PMID31948423
PMCPMC6966788

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.