ABSTRACT
Most of the data collected from the key informants, through the focus groups, and from the secondary documents was not readily quantifiable and therefore analysis required a systematic approach using content analysis. It was important to assess the data by identifying categories, sorting answers and interpreting the findings. However, the data collected through the community survey was much more quantifiable and allowed for statistical analysis. All the data were reduced to categories within which specific priorities were established. Each category was placed on an index card along with the appropriate priorities listed. The main categories were:
• Physical environment • Disease • Mental health issues • Lifestyle • Access to health services • Socio-economic issues
Before assessing the community’s view about priorities the team first ranked the items themselves to provide a comparison of their opinions with those of the community. Moreover, the team tried to rank order on the basis of observation and what they understood the community view to be. Following this and during a feedback meeting with the community the RPA team asked them to place these priority lists in rank order. This started a two-way discussion about the opportunities for change during which the RPA team learned more about the main concerns of the community, the limitations of statutory services and the need to prioritize problems. Following this all the data on each category was reduced to a number of statements describing key needs for the community. A group of local GPs was also asked to rank-order the priority list. This priority setting exercise with the three groups allowed a comparison to be made between them. In other words, it was ascertained whether the priorities chosen by the community members were of equal value to those chosen by the GPs and the RPA team. The comparisons could then be drawn using a statistical comparison or weighted approach.
