These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Utilization of audio-visual aids by family welfare workers.
    Author: Naik VR, Jain PK, Sharma BB.
    Journal: J Popul Res; 1977; 4(1):43-58. PubMed ID: 12278137.
    Abstract:
    Communication efforts have been an important component of the Indian Family Planning Welfare Program since its inception. However, its chief interests in its early years were clinical, until the adoption of the extension approach in 1963. Educational materials were developed, especially in the period 1965-8, to fit mass, group meeting and home visit approaches. Audiovisual aids were developed for use by extension workers, who had previously relied entirely on verbal approaches. This paper examines their use. A questionnaire was designed for workers in motivational programs at 3 levels: Village Level (Family Planning Health Assistant, Auxilliary Nurse-Midwife, Dias), Block Level (Public Health Nurse, Lady Health Visitor, Block Extension Educator), and District (District Extension Educator, District Mass Education and Information Officer). 3 Districts were selected from each State on the basis of overall family planning performance during 1970-2 (good, average, or poor). Units of other agencies were also included on the same basis. Findings: 1) Workers in all 3 categories preferred individual contacts over group meetings or mass approach. 2) 56-64% said they used audiovisual aids "sometimes" (when available). 25% said they used them "many times" and only 15.9% said "rarely." 3) More than 1/2 of workers in each category said they were not properly oriented toward the use of audiovisual aids. Nonavailability of the aids in the market was also cited. About 1/3 of village level and 1/2 of other workers said that the materials were heavy and liable to be damaged. Complexity, inaccuracy and confusion in use were not widely cited (less than 30%).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]