Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of researchers’ and participants’ evaluations

From: Research dissemination workshops: observations and implications based on an experience in Burkina Faso

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
  1. Source: Individual interviews with workshop participants and researchers (n = 11)