Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background Male involvement in various health practices is recognized as an important factor in improving maternal and child health outcomes. Male involvement interventions involve men in a variety of ways, at varying levels of inclusion and use a range of outcome measures. There is little agreement on how male involvement should be measured and some authors contend that male involvement may actually be detrimental to women's empowerment and autonomy. Few studies explore the realities, perceptions, determinants and efficacy of male involvement in newborn care, especially in African contexts. Methods Birth narratives of recent mothers (n = 25), in-depth interviews with recent fathers (n = 12) and two focus group discussions with fathers (n = 22) were conducted during the formative research phase of a community-based newborn care trial. Secondary analysis of this qualitative data identified emergent themes and established overall associations related to male involvement, newborn care and household roles in a rural African setting. Results Data revealed that gender dictates many of the perceptions and politics surrounding newborn care in this context. The influence of mother-in-laws and generational power dynamics were also identified as significant. Women alone perform almost all tasks related to newborn care whereas men take on the traditional responsibilities of economic providers and decision makers, especially concerning their wives' and children's health. Most men were interested in being more involved in newborn care but identified barriers to increased involvement, many of which related to gendered and generational divisions of labour and space. Conclusions Men defined involvement in a variety of ways, even if they were not physically involved in carrying out newborn care tasks. Some participant comments revealed potential risks of increasing male involvement suggesting that male involvement alone should not be an outcome in future interventions. Rather, the effect of male involvement on women's autonomy, the dynamics of senior women's influence and power and the real impact on health outcomes should be considered in intervention design and implementation. Any male involvement intervention should integrate a detailed understanding of context and strategies to include men in maternal and child health should be mutually empowering for both women and men.

BACKGROUND: Male involvement in various health practices is recognized as an important factor in improving maternal and child health outcomes. Male involvement interventions involve men in a variety of ways, at varying levels of inclusion and use a range of outcome measures. There is little agreement on how male involvement should be measured and some authors contend that male involvement may actually be detrimental to women's empowerment and autonomy. Few studies explore the realities, perceptions, determinants and efficacy of male involvement in newborn care, especially in African contexts. METHODS: Birth narratives of recent mothers (n = 25), in-depth interviews with recent fathers (n = 12) and two focus group discussions with fathers (n = 22) were conducted during the formative research phase of a community-based newborn care trial. Secondary analysis of this qualitative data identified emergent themes and established overall associations related to male involvement, newborn care and household roles in a rural African setting. RESULTS: Data revealed that gender dictates many of the perceptions and politics surrounding newborn care in this context. The influence of mother-in-laws and generational power dynamics were also identified as significant. Women alone perform almost all tasks related to newborn care whereas men take on the traditional responsibilities of economic providers and decision makers, especially concerning their wives' and children's health. Most men were interested in being more involved in newborn care but identified barriers to increased involvement, many of which related to gendered and generational divisions of labour and space. CONCLUSIONS: Men defined involvement in a variety of ways, even if they were not physically involved in carrying out newborn care tasks. Some participant comments revealed potential risks of increasing male involvement suggesting that male involvement alone should not be an outcome in future interventions. Rather, the effect of male involvement on women's autonomy, the dynamics of senior women's influence and power and the real impact on health outcomes should be considered in intervention design and implementation. Any male involvement intervention should integrate a detailed understanding of context and strategies to include men in maternal and child health should be mutually empowering for both women and men.

Background: Researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in scientific literature. Mapping of authorship of articles can provide an assessment of data ownership and research capacity in LMICs over time and identify variations between different settings.Methods: Systematic mapping of maternal health interventional research in LMICs from 2000 to 2012, comparing country of study and of affiliation of first authors. Studies on health systems or promotion; community-based activities; and haemorrhage, hypertension, HIV/STIs and malaria were included. Following review of 35,078 titles and abstracts, 2292 full-text publications were included. Data ownership was measured by the proportion of articles with an LMIC lead author (author affiliated with an LMIC institution).Results: The total number of papers led by an LMIC author rose from 45.0/year in 2000–2003 to 98.0/year in 2004–2007, but increased only slightly thereafter to 113.1/year in 2008–2012. In the same periods, the proportion of papers led by a local author was 58.4 %, 60.8 % and 60.1 %, respectively. Data ownership varies markedly between countries. A quarter of countries led more than 75 % of their research; while in 10 countries, under 25 % of publications had a local first author. Researchers at LMIC institutions led 56.6 % (1297) of all papers, but only 26.8 % of systematic reviews (65/243), 29.9 % of modelling studies (44/147), and 33.2 % of articles in journals with an Impact Factor ≥5 (61/184). Sub-Saharan Africa authors led 54.2 % (538/993) of studies in the region, while 73.4 % did in Latin America and the Caribbean (223/304). Authors affiliated with United States (561) and United Kingdom (207) institutions together account for a third of publications. Around two thirds of USAID and European Union funded studies had high-income country leads, twice as many as that of Wellcome Trust and Rockefeller Foundation.Conclusions: There are marked gaps in data ownership and these have not diminished over time. Increased ...

BACKGROUND: Researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in scientific literature. Mapping of authorship of articles can provide an assessment of data ownership and research capacity in LMICs over time and identify variations between different settings. METHODS: Systematic mapping of maternal health interventional research in LMICs from 2000 to 2012, comparing country of study and of affiliation of first authors. Studies on health systems or promotion; community-based activities; and haemorrhage, hypertension, HIV/STIs and malaria were included. Following review of 35,078 titles and abstracts, 2292 full-text publications were included. Data ownership was measured by the proportion of articles with an LMIC lead author (author affiliated with an LMIC institution). RESULTS: The total number of papers led by an LMIC author rose from 45.0/year in 2000-2003 to 98.0/year in 2004-2007, but increased only slightly thereafter to 113.1/year in 2008-2012. In the same periods, the proportion of papers led by a local author was 58.4 %, 60.8 % and 60.1 %, respectively. Data ownership varies markedly between countries. A quarter of countries led more than 75 % of their research; while in 10 countries, under 25 % of publications had a local first author. Researchers at LMIC institutions led 56.6 % (1297) of all papers, but only 26.8 % of systematic reviews (65/243), 29.9 % of modelling studies (44/147), and 33.2 % of articles in journals with an Impact Factor ≥5 (61/184). Sub-Saharan Africa authors led 54.2 % (538/993) of studies in the region, while 73.4 % did in Latin America and the Caribbean (223/304). Authors affiliated with United States (561) and United Kingdom (207) institutions together account for a third of publications. Around two thirds of USAID and European Union funded studies had high-income country leads, twice as many as that of Wellcome Trust and Rockefeller Foundation. CONCLUSIONS: There are marked gaps in data ownership and these have not diminished over time. Increased locally-led publications, however, does suggest a growing capacity in LMIC institutions to analyse and articulate research findings. Differences in author attribution between funders might signal important variations in funders' expectations of authorship and discrepancies in how funders understand collaboration. More stringent authorship oversight and reconsideration of authorship guidelines could facilitate growth in LMIC leadership. Left unaddressed, deficiencies in research ownership will continue to hinder alignment between the research undertaken and knowledge needs of LMICs.