The ecocultural context and child behavior problems: A qualitative analysis in rural Nepal.

Commonly used paradigms for studying child psychopathology emphasize individual-level factors and often neglect the role of context in shaping risk and protective factors among children, families, and communities. To address this gap, we evaluated influences of ecocultural contextual factors on definitions, development of, and responses to child behavior problems and examined how contextual knowledge can inform culturally responsive interventions. We drew on Super and Harkness' "developmental niche" framework to evaluate the influences of physical and social settings, childcare customs and practices, and parental ethnotheories on the definitions, development of, and responses to child behavior problems in a community in rural Nepal. Data were collected between February and October 2014 through in-depth interviews with a purposive sampling strategy targeting parents (N = 10), teachers (N = 6), and community leaders (N = 8) familiar with child-rearing. Results were supplemented by focus group discussions with children (N = 9) and teachers (N = 8), pile-sort interviews with mothers (N = 8) of school-aged children, and direct observations in homes, schools, and community spaces. Behavior problems were largely defined in light of parents' socialization goals and role expectations for children. Certain physical settings and times were seen to carry greater risk for problematic behavior when children were unsupervised. Parents and other adults attempted to mitigate behavior problems by supervising them and their social interactions, providing for their physical needs, educating them, and through a shared verbal reminding strategy (samjhaune). The findings of our study illustrate the transactional nature of behavior problem development that involves context-specific goals, roles, and concerns that are likely to affect adults' interpretations and responses to children's behavior. Ultimately, employing a developmental niche framework will elucidate setting-specific risk and protective factors for culturally compelling intervention strategies.

Understanding Antenatal Genetics Services in Sri Lanka: Current Landscape of Screening and Diagnostic Services and Contextual Factors Influencing Their Availability and Uptake

Background: Too little information is available on Sri Lanka’s current capacity to provide community genetic services—antenatal genetic services in particular—to understand whether building that capacity could further improve and reduce disparity in maternal and child health. This qualitative research project seeks to gather information on congenital disorders, routine antenatal care, and the current state of antenatal screening testing services within that routine antenatal to assess the feasibility of and the need for scaling up antenatal genetics services in Sri Lanka. Methods: Nineteen key informant (KI) interviews were conducted with stakeholders in antenatal care and genetic services. Seven focus group discussions were held with a total of 56 Public Health Midwives (PHMs), the health workers responsible for antenatal care at the field level. Transcripts for all interviews and FGDs were analyzed for key themes, and themes were categorized to address the specific aims of the project. Results: Antenatal genetic services play a minor role in antenatal care, with screening and diagnostic procedures available in the private sector and paid for out-of-pocket. KIs and PHMs expect that demand for antenatal genetic services will increase as patients’ purchasing power and knowledge grow but note that prohibitive abortion laws limit the ability of patients to act on test results. Genetic services compete for limited financial and human resources in the free public health system, and inadequate information on the prevalence of congenital disorders limits the ability to understand whether funding for services related to those disorders should be increased. A number of alternatives to scaling up antenatal genetic services within the free health system might be better suited to the Sri Lankan structural and social context. Conclusions: Scaling up antenatal genetic services within the public health system is not feasible in the current financial, legal, and human resource context. Yet current availability and utilization patterns contribute to regional and economic disparities, suggesting that stasis will not bring continued improvements in maternal and child health. More information on the burden of congenital disorders is necessary to fully understand if and how antenatal genetic service availability should be increased in Sri Lanka, but even before that information is gathered, examination of policies for patient referral, termination of pregnancy, and government support for individuals with genetic disease are steps that might bring extend improvements and reduce disparity in maternal and child health.

Primary care physician decision making regarding severe obesity treatment and bariatric surgery: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Less than 1% of severely obese US adults undergo bariatric surgery annually. It is critical to understand the factors that contribute to its utilization. OBJECTIVES: To understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) make decisions regarding severe obesity treatment and bariatric surgery referral. SETTING: Focus groups with PCPs practicing in small, medium, and large cities in Wisconsin. METHODS: PCPs were asked to discuss prioritization of treatment for a severely obese patient with multiple co-morbidities and considerations regarding bariatric surgery referral. Focus group sessions were analyzed by using a directed approach to content analysis. A taxonomy of consensus codes was developed. Code summaries were created and representative quotes identified. RESULTS: Sixteen PCPs participated in 3 focus groups. Four treatment prioritization approaches were identified: (1) treat the disease that is easiest to address; (2) treat the disease that is perceived as the most dangerous; (3) let the patient set the agenda; and (4) address obesity first because it is the common denominator underlying other co-morbid conditions. Only the latter approach placed emphasis on obesity treatment. Five factors made PCPs hesitate to refer patients for bariatric surgery: (1) wanting to "do no harm"; (2) questioning the long-term effectiveness of bariatric surgery; (3) limited knowledge about bariatric surgery; (4) not wanting to recommend bariatric surgery too early; and (5) not knowing if insurance would cover bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: Decision making by PCPs for severely obese patients seems to underprioritize obesity treatment and overestimate bariatric surgery risks. This could be addressed with PCP education and improvements in communication between PCPs and bariatric surgeons.