In a lecture given my Paul Wise at Stanford University, it was pointed out that in order for true and lasting change to occur in global public health, technical interventions had to be paired with social change. This is necessary in order to provide a social context for technical care that is accessible universally. It follows naturally, that the evaluation of any technical intervention is extremely important, if it is to be a successful counterpart to social change. In these difficult economic times, funds to support international health interventions are even more limited. It is important for potential interventions to be evidence-based. Research supporting the efficacy of said interventions is critical, if funding is to be directed towards international health interventions. The role of international aid specialists has widened, including not only the financing of international health interventions, but also the evaluation of the efficacy of their efficacy.
Dr. Wise explained that access to interventions was dependent on the efficacy of the intervention. If an intervention is highly effective, than people’s access to a health care provider or insurance will determine their access to the intervention. If the intervention is ineffective, than people’s disease burden will determine their access to the intervention. The most desirable situation would be the implementation of highly effective interventions within the context of a health system that is open to all people. In order to create a situation like this, researchers must evaluate the efficacy of interventions, so that they can be paired with social change (i.e. physicians/public health practitioner working with international policy makers/lawyers/politicians) to improve international health.
It follows, that there needs to be an evaluation of the efficacy of community health radio programs. If funding to support the development of future community health programs is to continue, there must be research that shows that the community of people listening to the community health radio program became more knowledgeable about critical health issues because of their exposure to health broadcasting. Researchers should employ a differential outcomes study, in order to ascertain the efficacy of a community health radio program. A differential outcomes study evaluates whether the intervention changed the behavior or knowledge of the audience. An example of a differential outcomes study for a community health radio program was done in Zambia in 1991 to evaluate the effectiveness of a radio drama program in improving a community’s understanding of HIV/AIDS. Researchers gave the audience a survey asking them general questions about the transmission, treatment, and prevention of HIV/AIDS before and after they introduced the radio drama. There was no difference in terms of the knowledge that the audience had about HIV/AIDS. But this does not show that the drama had no positive impact, but it does mean that the instrumentation used to measure the impact of the radio should be improved. Focus groups could be used to supplement these surveys. Focus groups are a much more organic research method, allowing people to build off of each other’s ideas and cumulatively produce an original idea that they would otherwise not have thought of in an individual survey. It is important to continue improving research methodology, so that community health radios can continue the important work of providing rural communities with critical health information.
References
Booth, Isobel. “Radio soap for health education: lessons learnt by Health Unlimited Rwanda 1997-2003.” Health Unlimited (2003): n. pag. Print.
Serlemitsos, E. A., U. Bharath-Kumar, J. A. Nyambe, B. Mukwatu, and R. E. Carty. “Building community mobilisation skills at scale: The synergy of radio distance learning and the roll-out of a national curriculum for health workers in Zambia.” Proc. of International Conference on AIDS, Thailand, Bangkok. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.
Skuse, Andrew. Radio Broadcasting for Health: An Issues Paper. Issue brief. N.p.: Department for International Development, 2004. Print.