Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Hubris, humility and humanity: expanding evidence approaches for improving and sustaining community health programmes
  1. Asha S George1,
  2. Amnesty E LeFevre2,3,
  3. Meike Schleiff3,
  4. Arielle Mancuso3,
  5. Emma Sacks3,4,
  6. Eric Sarriot4,5
  1. 1School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa
  2. 2Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
  3. 3Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  4. 4Maternal and Child Survival Program, USAID, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
  5. 5Save the Children, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Asha S George; asgeorge{at}uwc.ac.za

Abstract

Community-based approaches are a critical foundation for many health outcomes, including reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH). Evidence is a vital part of strengthening that foundation, but largely focuses on the technical content of what must be done, rather than on how disparate community actors continuously interpret, implement and adapt interventions in dynamic and varied community health systems. We argue that efforts to strengthen evidence for community programmes must guard against the hubris of relying on a single approach or hierarchy of evidence for the range of research questions that arise when sustaining community programmes at scale. Moving forward we need a broader evidence agenda that better addresses the implementation realities influencing the scale and sustainability of community programmes and the partnerships underpinning them if future gains in community RMNCH are to be realised. This will require humility in understanding communities as social systems, the complexity of the interventions they engage with and the heterogeneity of evidence needs that address the implementation challenges faced. It also entails building common ground across epistemological word views to strengthen the robustness of implementation research by improving the use of conceptual frameworks, addressing uncertainty and fostering collaboration. Given the complexity of scaling up and sustaining community RMNCH, ensuring that evidence translates into action will require the ongoing brokering of relationships to support the human creativity, scepticism and scaffolding that together build layers of evidence, critical thinking and collaborative learning to effect change.

  • intervention study
  • other study design
  • health systems

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Stephanie M Topp

  • Contributors ASG and AEL led the review with MS and AM with inputs from ES and ES. AG drafted the paper with inputs from all other coauthors. All authors reviewed and approved the last version of this article.

  • Funding This article was initially made possible by the generous support of the American people through the US Agency for International Development, under the terms of the Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-A-14-00028. ASG was subsequently supported by the South African Research Chair’s Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa (grant no 82769).

  • Disclaimer The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the US Government. Any opinion, finding and conclusion or recommendation expressed in this material is that of the author and the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.