On the limitations of barriers: Social visibility and weight management in Cuba and Samoa

Rethinking Barriers and Enablers in Qualitative Health Research: Limitations, Alternatives, and Enhancements

Explorations of barriers and enablers (or barriers and facilitators) to a desired health practice, implementation process, or intervention outcome have become so prevalent that they seem to be a default in much health services and public health research. In this article, we argue that decisions to frame research questions or analyses using barriers and enablers (B&Es) should not be default. Contrary to the strengths of qualitative research, the B&Es approach often bypasses critical reflexivity and can lead to shallow research findings with poor understanding of the phenomena of interest. The B&Es approach is untheorised, relying on assumptions of linear, unidirectional processes, universally desirable outcomes, and binary thinking which are at odds with the rich understanding of context and complexity needed to respond to the challenges faced by health services and public health. We encourage researchers to develop research questions using informed deliberation that considers a range of approaches and their implications for producing meaningful knowledge. Alternatives and enhancements to the B&Es approach are explored, including using 'whole package' methodologies; theories, conceptual frameworks, and sensitising ideas; and participatory methods. We also consider ways of advancing existing research on B&Es rather than doing 'more of the same': researchers can usefully investigate how a barrier or enabler works in depth; develop and test implementation strategies for addressing B&Es; or synthesise the B&Es literature to develop a new model or theory. Illustrative examples from the literature are provided. We invite further discussion on this topic.

Food, Taste, and the Body: Ingestion and Embodiment in Santiago de Cuba

Using a Black feminist embodied approach, this article analyzes the ways in which people in Santiago de Cuba draw on their own embodied practices, sensory experiences, and popular knowledge to determine what forms of ingestion (food, drink, etc.) are good for the body. Influenced by historical ideals of food consumption and colonial entanglements, Cubans use a combination of knowledge gleaned from biomedicine, official nutrition guidelines, and humoral medicine, which are not always in agreement, to ensure that they are taking care of their bodies appropriately. In addition to these external sources, they also continuously assess their own embodied responses to ingestion (e.g., pain, illness, headaches, or other bodily sensations) to determine which foods and drinks should be consumed. Practices of healthy ingestion may also vary between people and circumstance, which people learn over time and from one another, layering on another interpersonal dimension of embodied knowledge. [Cuba, food, embodiment, health, ingestion].

Fat Is All My Fault: Globalized Metathemes of Body Self-blame

Norms valorizing not-fat bodies appear to have spread around the world, combined with a globalizing belief that thinness is the result of individual management of self and hard work. We examine themes of blame and felt responsibility for weight and "fat" in four distinct geographic and cultural locations: peri-urban Georgia, United States; suburban Osaka, Japan; urban Encarnación, Paraguay; and urban Apia, Samoa. Use of a novel metatheme approach that compares and contrasts these four distinct places characterized by different population-level prevalences of obesity and by specific cultural histories relevant to body norms and ideals provides a flexible toolkit for comparative cross-cultural/multi-sited ethnographic research. We show that self-blame, marked by an articulated sense of individual responsibility for weight and a sense of failing in this responsibility, is present in every field site, but to varying degrees and expressed in different ways. [fat, obesity, metatheme, stigma, self-blame].

Barriers and facilitators systematic reviews in health: A methodological review and recommendations for reviewers

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews cataloguing the barriers to and facilitators of various outcomes are increasingly popular, despite criticisms of this type of review on philosophical, methodological, and practical grounds. The aims of this review are to appraise, analyze, and discuss the reporting and synthesis practices used in recently published barriers and facilitators reviews in health services research.

METHODS

All English-language peer-reviewed systematic reviews that synthesized research on barriers and facilitators in a health services context were eligible for inclusion. We searched 11 databases over a 13-month period (1 November 2017-30 November 2018) using an exhaustive list of search terms for "barrier(s)," "facilitator(s)," and "systematic review."

RESULTS

One hundred reviews were included. We found a high degree of variation in the synthesis practices used in these reviews, with the majority employing aggregative (rather than interpretive) approaches. The findings echo common critiques of this review type, including concerns about the reduction of complex phenomena to simplified, discrete factors. Although several reviews highlighted the "complexity" of barriers and facilitators, this was usually not analyzed systematically. Analysis of the subsample of reviews that explicitly discussed the barriers and facilitators approach revealed some common issues. These tended to be either conceptual/definitional (eg, ideas about interrelationships and overlap between factors) and methodological/practical (eg, challenges related to aggregating heterogeneous research).

CONCLUSION

Barriers and facilitators reviews should (a) clearly operationally define "barrier" and "facilitator," (b) explicitly describe how factors are extracted and subsequently synthesized, and (c) provide critical reflection on the contextual variability and reliability of identified factors.