Table 3.
Comparison of researchers’ and participants’ evaluations
| Researchers | Participants |
|---|---|
| Content | |
| - Order of presentations logical, but some repetitions - Presentations conveying key message (e.g. lack of integration of anti-malaria interventions, community health workers (CHWs) not much used in urban settings, re-emergence of malaria in certain points of concentration identified each year, etc.) |
- Results seen as credible, good quality of studies - Presentations by international researchers seen as sensitive to conditions in the field and adapted to the context - Scientific process too detailed for the non-initiated, but appreciated by those with research experience |
| Accessibility | |
| - Language used by researchers not always comprehensible to everyone - Anthropological content perceived as being accessible and interesting for participants - Geographic content on prevalence zones too complex and not presented in sufficiently simplified language |
- Language comprehensible for actors in the health system - Language too specialised for public administration actors and local health workers - Presentations on prevalence zones too complex to understand |
| Group membership | |
| - Desire to have partners with decision-making power in attendance (regional and district-level decision-makers, anti-malaria program heads) - Adapting presentations challenging due to the diversity of actors in attendance (public administrators, nurses working in the field) |
- Diversity of actors in attendance appreciated (researchers, non-governmental organisations, practitioners) - Absence of decision-makers from the central level perceived as a limitation - Concern that no CHWs attended the workshop |
| Interactivity | |
| - Discussions seen as helpful in delineating the problems - Hesitation by participants from the field to express themselves due to presence of decision-makers (public administration, anti-malaria program heads) - Hierarchical relationships potentially inhibiting any challenging of results presented |
- Friendly environment that encouraged feedback from participants - Participants self-conscious and hesitant at first, but still able to present their views - Space created in which everyone’s (nurses, physicians, practitioners) concerns and opinions could be shared |
| Recommendations | |
| - Difficult to formulate recommendations geared toward specific actors - Perceived lack of receptivity and interest with regard to some proposed recommendations |
- Recommendations and proposed solutions to problems both seen as being clear - Lack of concrete discussion on actions to be taken going forward |
Source: Individual interviews with workshop participants and researchers (n = 11)