Table 3 Coding framework
From: Assessing participation in a community-based health planning and services programme in Ghana
Codes from data | Basic themes | Organising themes | Global themes | Spider-gram scores |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Barriers to community participation | Needs Assessment | 1 | ||
– Health team from Wa | – Non-involvement of communities in programme design | – CHPS was designed externally by health experts | ||
– We wanted a health centre | ||||
– Programme designed outside the community | – Community meetings were limited to a few | |||
– Community not involved | ||||
– Only unit committee chairman and a few were consulted | ||||
Facilitators of community participation | ||||
– We decided on CHPS site | – Community members chose CHPS site | – High decision making role | ||
– Community sensitised on about CHPS | – Community awareness about CHPS | |||
Barriers to community participation | Leadership | 3 | ||
– committee was selected | – Undemocratic decision making processes | – Undemocratic leadership style | ||
– Chairman and the committee | – Vertical leadership style | – Patriarchal leadership | ||
– decisions made unilaterally by the committee | – Low female representation in committee | |||
– Don’t know about women role | ||||
– women not in the committee | ||||
Facilitators of community participation | ||||
– Dedicated and hardworking | – High community confidence in committee | – Selfless and represent community interest | ||
– Represent all our interest | ||||
Facilitators of community participation | Organization | 5 | ||
– Working with health volunteers | – CHPS engage with community structures | – CHPS integrated well with pre-existing community structures | ||
– traditional birth attendants(TBA) give support | – CHPS tolerance with community networks | |||
– unit committee team support and engage with CHPS | ||||
Barriers to community participation | Resource mobilisation | 5 | ||
– Everyone is poor | – Resource MobilizationCommittee dominance in resource contributions and allocation | – Contribution not pro-poor | ||
– everyone contributes equally | – Controlled exclusively by committee | – Less community control | ||
– decisions made exclusively by health committee | – Internal resources | – Lack of external support | ||
– contributions given to committee | ||||
– within community resources | ||||
Facilitators of community participation | ||||
– Supported and contributed fully | – Full community support for CHPS | – community actively contributed to support CHPS | ||
– CHPS maintenance | – Community highly resourceful | |||
– Contributed labour, bought stones, carried sand, water, etc. | – Contributions on gender lines | |||
– Contribute based on gender | ||||
Barriers to community participation | Management | 4 | ||
– We(females) are not involved | – ManagementNon-inclusiveness of management structures | – Less community influence and voice in management | ||
– Only the committee | – Ineffective management | – Limited management capacity | ||
– No skills training | ||||
Facilitators of community participation | ||||
– Committee not influenced in CHPS supervision and management | – Favourable management structures | – CHPS independently overseen by committee | ||
– Cordial relation with GHS | – Self-governing committee | |||
– Decision-making structures represent all interest groups | ||||