Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Although Population-Health-Environment (PHE) approaches have been implemented and studied for several decades, there are limited data on whether, how and why they work. This study provides a process evaluation of the 'Healthy Wetlands for the Cranes and People of Rukiga, Uganda' project, implemented by an NGO-local hospital consortium. This programme involved a research design element, testing two delivery modalities to understand the added benefit of integrating conservation, livelihoods and human health interventions, compared to delivering sector support services separately (as is more usual). The process evaluation sought to understand how the programme was implemented, the mechanisms of impact, how it was shaped by the context in which it was delivered and whether there were discernable differences across the two delivery arms. Methods involved key informant interviews with implementing staff and community educators, a review of programme documents and secondary qualitative analysis of interviews and focus groups with community members. The findings include a statistically significant increase in the reach of the programme, in both service delivery and sensitization activities, when the sectors were fully integrated. It appears that this comparative advantage of integration is because of the improved acceptability and motivation among stakeholders, and increased initiative (and agency) taken by community-based peer educators and community members. We argue that the 'software' of the programme underpins these mechanisms of impact: trust-based relationships embedded in the system enabled coordinated leadership, supported local staff agency and encouraged motivation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11570833 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czae050 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!