Community perspectives on barriers to injury care in Northern Malawi: a three delays framed assessment using focus groups and photovoice

Abstract

Abstract Introduction The global burden of injury is huge, falling disproportionately on poorer populations. The benefits of qualitative research in injury care are recognised and its application is growing. We used a novel application of focus group discussions with photovoice to rapidly assess barriers at each of three delay stages; seeking (delay-1), reaching (delay-2) or receiving (delay-3) injury care in Northern Malawi. Methods Three community Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) of individuals with (FGD1) and without (FGD2) recent injury experience and community leaders (FGD3) discussed barriers to seeking, reaching or receiving care following injury. Participants from FGD1 subsequently used a digital camera and, following training in photovoice, took photographs illustrating barriers to injury care. Participants reconvened to discuss images which they believed illustrated important barriers. A framework method analysis compared barriers generated to those identified by an earlier Delphi study. Results Seven of eight invited adult community members attended each discussion group. Within the FGDs, all prior Delphi derived delay 1 barriers were described. Within delay 2, all but three were discussed by community participants. Those not covered were: 1) “communication” ;2) “prehospital care”; 3) “coordination”. Within Delay 3, only “capacity”was not highlighted by participants during the study. Additional health system barriers not identified in the Delphi were inductively derived. Within Delay 1, these were labelled; “religious or other beliefs”; “indecision”; “fear or lacking courage”; and “community/bystander engagement”. Within Delay 2, “lack of assistance” was derived. Within Delay 3; “alleged corruption”; “interfacility transfer”; and “police processes” were all identified during analysis. The photovoice group provided 21 photographs evidencing 15 barriers. Delay 1 was the most frequently captured by images (12/21).The individual barriers most frequently described were “transport” and “roads” (6/21 and 5/21, respectively). The photovoice group did not describe any additional barriers not covered in the prior FGDs. Conclusion We identified several barriers within this health system. Participants illustrated how some barriers impact on multiple phases of delay. The method was quick, low cost and participants grasped the technique and research question effectively. We recommend this approach for future health system assessments.

Keywords

• Photovoice
• Focus group discussion
• Health system research
• Low- and middle-income countries
• Injury
• Trauma