Browsing by Author "Asiki, G."
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item The African urban food environment framework for creating healthy nutrition policy and interventions in urban Africa(PLOS ONE, 2021) Osei-Kwasi, H.A.; Laar, A.; Zotor, F.; Pradeilles, R.; Aryeetey, R.; Green, M.; Griffiths, P.; Akparibo, R.; Wanjohi, M.N.; Rousham, E.; Barnes, A.; Booth, A.; Mensah, K.; Asiki, G.; Kimani-Murage, E.; Bricas, N.; Holdsworth, M.This study developed, validated, and evaluated a framework of factors influencing dietary behaviours in urban African food environments, to inform research prioritisation and inter vention development in Africa. A multi-component methodology, drawing on concept map ping, was employed to construct a framework of factors influencing dietary behaviours in urban Africa. The framework adapted a widely used socio-ecological model (developed in a high-income country context) and was developed using a mixed-methods research approach that comprised: i. Evidence synthesis consisting of a systematic review of 39 papers covering 14 African countries; ii. Qualitative interview data collected for adolescents and adults (n = 144) using photovoice in urban Ghana and Kenya; and iii. Consultation with interdisciplinary African experts (n = 71) from 27 countries, who contributed to at least one step of the framework (creation, validation/evaluation, finalisation). The final framework included 103 factors influencing dietary behaviours. Experts identified the factors influencing dietary behaviours across all the four levels of the food environment i.e. the individual, social, physical and macro levels. Nearly half (n = 48) were individual-level factors and just under a quarter (n = 26) were at the macro environmental level. Fewer factors associated with social (n = 15) and physical (14) environments were identified. At the macro level, the factors ranked as most important were food prices, cultural beliefs and seasonality. Factors ranked as important at the social level were household composition, family food habits and dietary practices. The type of food available in the neighbourhood and convenience were seen as important at the physical level, while individual food habits, food preferences and socioeconomic status were ranked highly at the individual level. About half of the factors (n = 54) overlap with those reported in an existing socio-ecological food environment framework developed in a high-income country context. A further 49 factors were identified that were not reported in the selected high-income country framework, underlining the importance of contextualisation. Our conceptual framework offers a useful tool for research to understand dietary transitions in urban African adolescents and adults, as well as identification of factors to intervene when promoting healthy nutritious diets to prevent multiple forms of malnutrition.Item Editorial: The African food environments(Frontiers in Public Health, 2023) Laar, A.; Baye, K.; Zotor, F.; Asiki, G.; Lartey, A.Item Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study(BMC Medical Ethics, 2022) Kisiangani, I.; Mohamed, S.F.; Kyobutungi, C.; Tindana, P.; Ghansah, A.; Ramsay, M.; Asiki, G.Background: A fundamental ethical challenge in conducting genomics research is the question of what and how individual level genetic findings and aggregate genomic results should be conveyed to research participants and communities. This is within the context of minimal guidance, policies, and experiences, particularly in Africa. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders’ on returning genomics research results to participants in Kenya. Methods: This qualitative study involved focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 69 stakeholders. The purposively selected participants, included research ethics committee (REC) members (8), community members (44), community resource persons (8), and researchers (9). A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. Six FGDs and twenty-five (IDIs) were conducted among the diferent stakeholders. The issues explored in the interviews included: (1) views on returning results, (2) kind of results to be returned, (3) value of returning results to participants, and (4) challenges anticipated in returning results to participants and communities. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in Nvivo 12 pro. Thematic and content analysis was conducted. Results: Participants agreed on the importance of returning genomic results either as individual or aggregate results. The most cited reasons for returning of genomic results included recognizing participants’ contribution to research, encouraging participation in future research, and increasing the awareness of scientific progress. Other aspects on how genomic research results should be shared included sharing easy to understand results in the shortest time possible and maintaining confidentiality when sharing sensitive results. Conclusions: This study identified key stakeholders’ perspectives on returning genomic results at the individual and community levels in two urban informal settlements of Nairobi. The majority of the participants expect to receive feedback about their genomic results, and it is an obligation for researchers to see how to best fulfil it.Item Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study(BMC, 2022) Kisiangani, I.; Mohamed, S.F.; Kyobutungi, C.; Tindana, P.; Ghansah, A.; Ramsay, M.; Asiki, G.Background: A fundamental ethical challenge in conducting genomics research is the question of what and how individual level genetic findings and aggregate genomic results should be conveyed to research participants and communities. This is within the context of minimal guidance, policies, and experiences, particularly in Africa. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders’ on returning genomics research results to participants in Kenya. Methods: This qualitative study involved focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 69 stakeholders. The purposively selected participants, included research ethics committee (REC) members (8), community members (44), community resource persons (8), and researchers (9). A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. Six FGDs and twenty-five (IDIs) were conducted among the different stakeholders. The issues explored in the interviews included: (1) views on returning results, (2) kind of results to be returned, (3) value of returning results to participants, and (4) challenges anticipated in returning results to participants and communities. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in Nvivo 12 pro. Thematic and content analysis was conducted. Results: Participants agreed on the importance of returning genomic results either as individual or aggregate results. The most cited reasons for returning of genomic results included recognizing participants’ contribution to research, encouraging participation in future research, and increasing the awareness of scientific progress. Other aspects on how genomic research results should be shared included sharing easy to understand results in the shortest time possible and maintaining confidentiality when sharing sensitive results. Conclusions: This study identified key stakeholders’ perspectives on returning genomic results at the individual and community levels in two urban informal settlements of Nairobi. The majority of the participants expect to receive feedback about their genomic results, and it is an obligation for researchers to see how to best fulfil it.