ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Public Health
Sec. Public Health Education and Promotion
Volume 13 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613903
Adapting the Deliberative Democracy Approach to LMIC Settings: A Case Study in Nigeria
Provisionally accepted- 1Emory University, Atlanta, United States
- 2Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
- 3University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria
- 4Department of Clinical Sciences, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research (NIMR), Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
- 5College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria
- 6AIDS Prevention Initiative in Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria
- 7School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Developing sustainable health promotion interventions in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) faces challenges due to limited infrastructure and diverse cultural contexts.Community engagement is essential for effective health promotion, but higher intensity strategies may be infeasible in under-resourced settings. This study aimed to adapt the Mentor Mother (MM) HIV peer program to include HPV self-screening for Nigerian women living with HIV using deliberative democracy (DD) principles.The study utilized a tiered DD approach to explore stakeholders' perspectives on feasible and sustainable strategies for the MM program. The process included two tiers: an initial deliberation among the research team and a subsequent community deliberation. The research team deliberation involved online sessions to identify feasible program adaptations as well as a model deliberation process. The community deliberation included a diverse group of stakeholders who participated in a two-day conference, engaging in small and large group discussions to reach consensus on program adaptations.The research team identified two options for HPV sample collection and result delivery.The community deliberation reached consensus on both questions. For sample collection, the preferred option was for mentor mothers to educate women in organized groups and transport samples to the laboratory. For result delivery, the consensus was for mentor mothers to return all results to patients after additional training. The process demonstrated high levels of participant satisfaction, increased self-efficacy in explaining HPV screening, and adherence to DD principles of inclusivity, reasoned justification, and societal perspective.The DD process was feasible and effective in adapting the MM program for HPV screening in Nigeria. The approach empowered community members and enhanced the intervention's development. However, adaptations were necessary to address cultural norms and logistical challenges. The study highlights the potential of DD to inform health promotion strategies in LMICs, ensuring interventions are culturally appropriate and sustainable.
Keywords: deliberative democracy, LMIC, cervical cancer, HPV, Women living with HIV
Received: 17 Apr 2025; Accepted: 08 Sep 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Gaydos, Salami, Yusuf, Idigbe, Awolude, Ogunsola, Staple, Ezemelue, Ajayi, Ezechi, McBride and Flowers. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Laura M. Gaydos, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
Lisa Flowers, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, 30322, Georgia, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.