KAk conducted four group interviews (GI) with male attenders, four GIs with female attenders, one GI with male diabetic attenders, and one GI with female diabetic attenders. She conducted one GI with a male non-attender, and one GI with a female non-attender (Table
1). GIs had a similar format to a semi-structured interview, and conversation occurred primarily between the researcher and the participant, as opposed to between participants [
25,
26]. GIs had 3–5 participants and we used participatory photography, or ‘photovoice’ [
27], and discussion to explore personal and group experience of the intervention. Photovoice typically entails giving participants cameras and inviting them to take photos which represent issues of importance to them. The photographs and the narrative about the issues they identify can facilitate communication about an issue within and between groups of people. Typically, photovoice has been used in participatory action research with marginalised groups to identify and communicate about their experience of social problems in order to stimulate action to address problems [
28,
29]. To a lesser extent, it has also been used in evaluation research [
30‐
32]. Photovoice enables greater participant control over the research process [
28,
29,
33], and enables critical reflection prior to discussion with researchers [
34]. This can increase participant confidence and facilitate better communication between researchers and participants [
35]. KAk took four mobile phones with cameras to each group and asked them to take photos that illustrated how the intervention had affected them, their family and community. If they could not take photos of the subject they wanted to, they should take photos of a representation of that subject. Participants discussed if they wanted to take photos individually, or together, and how to share cameras. After they had taken photos, they informed KAk who arranged a convenient time and place to conduct the GIs. Photos were printed and given to participants at discussions.
Male attender group discussion (GI) | 1 (5) | 2 (8) | 2 (9) | |
Male attender focus group discussion (FGD) | | | 2 (15) | |
Male non-attender | | 1 (4) | | |
Female attender GI | 1 (4) | 2 (9) | 1 (5) | 1 (3) |
Female attender FGD | 1 (9) | | 2 (20) | 1 (7) |
Female non-attender | | | | 1 (5) |
Total |
3 (18)
|
5 (21)
|
7 (49)
|
3 (15)
|
KAk also conducted two focus group discussions (FGDs) with 6–8 male attenders, and four FGDs with 6–8 female attenders to explore how the intervention had affected communities and explore triangulation with the data collected through other methods. KAk took observation notes during and after field visits. She used topic guides in GIs and FGDs to explore the barriers and enablers of behaviour change and how the intervention was able or unable to address these. The topic guide and photovoice process were piloted in one group discussion with non-diabetic men and, after minor adjustments, we felt that further piloting was not necessary. Discussions ranged from 35 min to 2 h and 5 min. KAk took informed consent from all participants and informed consent to show the photos in public forums. Participants also took informed consent from those who were the subject of the photograph.