Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Global Health > Social Contexts of Interventions > Flashcards

Social Contexts of Interventions Flashcards

1
Q

CORNISH & CAMPBELL (2009): IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL CONTEXTS FOR INTERVENTIONS

A
  • 3 contexts to consider:
    1. SYMBOLIC CONTEXT
    2. MATERIAL-POLITICAL CONTEXT
    3. RELATIONAL-INSTITUTIONAL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

CORNISH & CAMPBELL (2009): SYMBOLIC CONTEXT

A
  • refers to social ideas/identities “floating” around in social world in which we inhabit; aka. valorised/supported forms of masculinity/femininity
  • very hard not to conform to particular identities; need to think how this limits/enables to people to change dif behs
  • also about ideas (ie. stigma; in-group/out-group)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

CORNISH & CAMPBELL (2009): MATERIAL-POLITICAL CONTEXT

A
  • refers to:
    1. what nature of livelihoods/poverty is like
    2. opportunities available in terms of work
    3. political movements
    4. ways in which power can shape opportunities
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

CORNISH & CAMPBELL (2009): RELATIONAL-INSTITUTIONAL

A
  • aspects (ie. social networks) at individual/group lvl (ie. community groups/institutions incl. government)
  • opportunities/constraints that they put in place
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

IMPACT OF SOCIAL CONTEXTS ON SGIs

A
  • 3 broad ways:
    1. translation of learning; ideas into wider social world (aka. critique of SGIs)
    2. impacts delivery of SGIs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

GIBBS ET AL. (2019): WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL TRIAL (BACKGROUND)

A
  • Afghanistan experienced 40+ years of war
  • clear links between conflict experience/settings & IPV experience/perpetration
  • conflicy settings = particularly hard to work in
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

GIBBS ET AL. (2019): WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL TRIAL (INTERVENTION)

A
  • ran 12 month combined economic/social empowerment intervention for groups of 25 women:
    1. rights based training
    2. numeracy/literacy/business skills
    3. stipend of $10/month
    4. referrals to other support (ie. health/business training/etc.)
  • sought to evaluate whether intervantion could reduce IPV experienced & depressive symptoms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

GIBBS ET AL. (2019): BARRIERS TO TRANSFORMATION IN WFWI TRIAL

A
  1. MATERIAL-POLITICAL BARRIERS
  2. INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS
  3. SYMBOLIC BARRIERS
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

GIBBS ET AL. (2019): BARRIERS TO TRANSFORMATION IN WFWI TRIAL (MATERIAL-POLITICAL BARRIERS)

A
  • improvements in economic position seen
  • livelihood improvements = not as strong as needed:
    1. livelihoods WEREN’T always appropriate (ie. animal husbandry)
    2. access to materials limited (ie. mushroom growing/spores)
    3. livelihoods = oft mediated by husband/family
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

GIBBS ET AL. (2019): BARRIERS TO TRANSFORMATION IN WFWI TRIAL (INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS)

A
  • understood women’s rights
  • limits to changes
  • divorce laws meant women had to accept violence
  • required male guardian to leave house
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

GIBBS ET AL. (2019): BARRIERS TO TRANSFORMATION IN WFWI TRIAL (SYMBOLIC BARRIERS)

A
  • confidence/ability to discuss issues w/husband increased
  • limits to change:
    1. when husband disagreed -> quickly backed down
    2. change only possible within household system
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

REED ET AL. (2013): HIV & SUBSTANCE INTERVENTION

A
  • Women’s Health CoOp (WHC)
  • short 2-session group intervention focused on:
    1. HIV-risks associated w/substance abuse; taught sexual/condom negotiation skills
    2. relationship power; building communication/negotiation skills; strategies avoiding violent situations
  • WHC seen reductions in alcohol/violence experience
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

REED ET AL. (2013): SOCIAL CONTEXTS SHAPING IMPACTS

A
  • importance of groups/group bonding
  • institutions:
    1. social connections to family important
    2. ending social connections linked to drug abuse BUT challenges
    3. needing to leave bfs if drug users BUT not if supportive change
  • material political; employment opportunities (ie. offered other opportunities)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

STERK ET AL. (2003): HIV RISK REDUCTION AMONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMEN WHO INJECT DRUGS

A
  • HIV-risk reduction intervention; focused on individual African-American female frug users (mainly crack users)
  • interventions used theory of planned beh + gender; power focused on social context of women’s lives
    INTERVENTION
  • 4-session enhanced motivation intervention
  • 4-session enhanced negotiation intervantion
  • control NIDA standard of care
    OUTCOMES
  • reduced drug use/sex work
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

STERK ET AL. (2007): INDIVIDUAL ACTION & COMMUNITY CONTEXT (HEALTH INTERVENTION PROJECT)

A
  • 65 in-depth interviews over study period
  • impact of community on ability to change
    RESULTS
  • gave up crack BUT changed social connections/daily life structure (ie. isolating themselves/establishing social connections/12-step programmes)
  • changing HIV risk (ie. getting high w/fewer people in safe setting)
  • sex work for drugs (ie. where reduced drugs also reduced sex in exchange for money/drugs; where not, no change)
  • as started to make change in own lives; more frustrated about context they live in (aka. change social roles; limited roles available (mothers/drug users/poor women)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

CORNISH & CAMPBELL (2009): SOCIAL CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL PEER EDUCATION (SUMMERTOWN, SA)

A
  • HIV-transmission among sex workers around mines
  • peer group process led by nurse w/peer outreach workers
  • multi-stakeholder group
  • no impact on HIV-incidence
  • peers never fully integrated
17
Q

CORNISH & CAMPBELL (2009): SOCIAL CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL PEER EDUCATION (SONAGACHI, INDIA)

A
  • HIV-transmission in red-light area, Kolkata
  • 12 sex worker peer educators
  • moved beyond sex work peer groups to support everyday struggles w/clients/brothel owners
  • sex worker led management group
  • HIV-incidence/violence reduced
18
Q

CORNISH & CAMPBELL (2009): SUMMERTOWN V SONAGACH SUMMARY

A
  • context = more supportive in Sonagachi (ie. relations stable; political precedents of empowerment)
  • approach beyond biomedical (ie. community development & addressing wider social needs; narrowly biomedical approach)
  • strategies for effective SGIs (address social factors driving disadvantage/poor health; involve communities; devise strategies & commit to social empowerment; engage stakeholders carefully)
19
Q

SUMMARY (SOCIAL CONTEXTS)

A
  • positive individual change = hard to sustain outside of groups
  • change requires sig shifts in identities:
    1. social relations need to change
    2. identities available to individuals = limited
    3. political-economic contexts = challenges
  • strengthening SGIs may mean working explicitly to strengthen/address social contexts interventions work in
20
Q

CHRISTOFIDES ET AL. (2020): SONKE CHANGE TRIAL

A
  • in urban informal settlements in South Africa; similar context as for SSCF
  • Sonke Gender Justice (Sonke) focused on engaging men/boys:
    1. One Man Can: small group workshops
    2. advocacy/social mobilisation
  • implemented 18+ months:
    1. core team implementing (7 people)
  • small group workshops
    2. community action teams (CATs) volunteers
  • discussion w/peers; mini-workshops; door-to-door activities
    3. local lvl advocacy
21
Q

INTERVENTION THEORY OF CHANGE

A
  • SONKE workshops & outreach/community action teams/local advocacy ->
  • enhanced critical consciousness + better social cohesion/trust + collective efficacy/action ->
  • self-efficacy to take action + reduced adherence to harmful masculinity norms ->
  • improbed mental health + better partner communication + reduction in harmful alcohol ->
  • decreased IPV
22
Q

HATCHER ET AL. (2020): BARRIERS TO INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION

A
  1. PHYSICAL SPACE IN URBAN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS
  2. WORKSHOPS CHALLENGING TO DELIVER
  3. UNABLE TO BUILD CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS
  4. VOLUNTEERS NOT AN OPTION
  5. ADVOCACY WAS CO-OPTED
23
Q

HATCHER ET AL. (2020): BARRIERS TO INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION (PHYSICAL SPACE IN URBAN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS)

A
  • digital stories = aimed to promote/support people to change; DIDN’T occur
  • street soccer = used to bring communities together; NOT possible
  • open house = friends/family invited to discuss project themes together; NOT option
24
Q

HATCHER ET AL. (2020): BARRIERS TO INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION (WORKSHOPS CHALLENGING TO DELIVER)

A
  • ended up using taverns
  • limited private spaces for workshops
  • pps = hungry
25
Q

HATCHER ET AL. (2020): BARRIERS TO INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION (UNABLE TO BUILD CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS)

A
  • workshops = too short; few attended many
  • awareness raising achieved
26
Q

HATCHER ET AL. (2020): BARRIERS TO INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION (VOLUNTEERS NOT AN OPTION)

A
  • high turnover as people migrated a lot
  • stipend not payment
27
Q

HATCHER ET AL. (2020): BARRIERS TO INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION (ADVOCACY = CO-OPTED)

A
  • got involved in local government responses
  • hard to challenge & “make waves”
  • back-lash from identifying community
28
Q

GIBBS ET AL. (2015): SSCF

A

JOBS
- people attended thinking it’d lead to jobs
- attendence = challenge as people looked for jobs
FOOD
- provided during intervention
- arguments about distribution of left-over food
- food for children who attended sessions
TAXIS
- intervention in central town; public taxi ride away
- though reimbused hard to borrow from neighbours to travel in
- male partners’ worried why women travelling in town
JOURNALS
- for self-reflection/notes
- literacy; privacy (male partners)

29
Q

PAWSON & TILLEY (1997): CONTEXT-MECHANISM-OUTCOME

A
  • realistic evaluation
  • suggest whether interventions work OR not need to focus on:
    1. conceptualising conditions under which mechanisms may (not) work
    2. interventions may work within given/positive conditions
    3. interventions may not work if context does not support change
  • BUT… who does intervention work for? under what conditions? why?

Global Health (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions