Public Trust in Laboratory Results During Emerging Infectious Disease Alerts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61919/hyjnz850Keywords:
family planning; Marvi Markaz; community health workers; qualitative endline evaluation; contraceptive access; Sindh; Pakistan.Abstract
Background: Family planning programmes in underserved areas of Sindh require more than commodity availability because contraceptive decision-making is shaped by social norms, gender power, myths about side effects, women’s mobility, and trust in service providers. Community-based models such as Marvi Markaz/BiB may improve acceptability by linking door-to-door counselling with safe local access points, but qualitative evidence is needed to understand how such models are experienced by women, men, frontline workers, and programme staff. Objective: This study explored perceptions of the Marvi Markaz/BiB family planning model, focusing on acceptability, barriers and facilitators, and conditions for sustainability. Methods: An interpretative qualitative endline evaluation was conducted using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with married women of reproductive age, men, Marvi workers, and programme staff. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, with attention to patterns across participant groups and implementation perspectives. Results: Six themes were identified: trust in Marvi workers, safe local service space, myths and fear of side effects, gendered decision-making, commodity continuity, and sustainability through supervision and monitoring. Acceptability was linked to familiar local counselling, privacy, reduced travel barriers, and commodity linkage, while barriers included misinformation, male approval, household influence, and supply interruptions. Conclusion: The model was perceived as acceptable when trust, safe spaces, and commodity access worked together. Sustainability requires male engagement, refresher training, supervision, monitoring, and reliable supply systems.
References
1. National Institute of Population Studies, ICF. Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2017–18. Islamabad, Pakistan, and Rockville, Maryland: NIPS and ICF; 2019.
2. FP2030. Pakistan: FP2030 commitment. Washington, DC: FP2030; 2022. Accessed June 24, 2026.
3. World Health Organization. WHO guideline on health policy and system support to optimize community health worker programmes. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
4. World Health Organization, Global Health Workforce Alliance. Pakistan’s Lady Health Worker Programme. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
5. Casterline JB, Sathar ZA, ul Haque M. Obstacles to contraceptive use in Pakistan: a study in Punjab. Stud Fam Plann. 2001;32(2):95-110.
6. Douthwaite M, Ward P. Increasing contraceptive use in rural Pakistan: an evaluation of the Lady Health Worker Programme. Health Policy Plan. 2005;20(2):117-123.
7. United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations; 2015.
8. World Health Organization, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Family planning: a global handbook for providers. 4th ed. Geneva and Baltimore: World Health Organization and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; 2022.
9. United Nations Population Fund. State of world population 2023: 8 billion lives, infinite possibilities. New York: UNFPA; 2023.
10. Government of Pakistan. Pakistan 2025: one nation, one vision. Islamabad: Ministry of Planning, Development and Reform; 2014.
11. Agley J. Assessing changes in US public trust in science amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health. 2020.
12. Binnicker MJ. Emergence of a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the importance of diagnostic testing: why partnership between clinical laboratories, public health agencies, and industry is essential to control the outbreak. Clin Chem. 2020;66(5):664-666.
13. Charlton C, Hull N, Sloma CR, Bonifas M, Johnson M, Strain A, et al. How to prepare for the unexpected: a public health laboratory response. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2021.
14. Cornish N, Anderson NL, Arambula DG, Arduino M, Bryan A, Burton N, et al. Clinical laboratory biosafety gaps: lessons learned from past outbreaks reveal a path to a safer future. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2021.
15. Fridman I, Lucas N, Henke D, Zigler CK. Association between public knowledge about COVID-19, trust in information sources, and adherence to social distancing: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(3):e22060.
16. Hahn A, Podbielski A, Meyer T, Zautner A, Loderstädt U, Schwarz N, et al. On detection thresholds: a review on diagnostic approaches in the infectious disease laboratory and the interpretation of their results. Acta Trop. 2020.
17. Henderson J, Ward P, Tonkin E, Meyer S, Pillen H, McCullum D, et al. Developing and maintaining public trust during and post-COVID-19: can we apply a model developed for responding to food scares? Front Public Health. 2020.
18. Holroyd TA, Oloko OK, Salmon D, Omer S, Limaye R. Communicating recommendations in public health emergencies: the role of public health authorities. Health Secur. 2020.
19. Kaul K. Laboratories and pandemic preparedness. J Mol Diagn. 2020.
20. Kreps S, Kriner D. Model uncertainty, political contestation, and public trust in science: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci Adv. 2020.
21. Lippi G, Plebani M. The critical role of laboratory medicine during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other viral outbreaks. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020.
22. MacKay M, Colangeli T, Thaivalappil A, Del Bianco A, McWhirter J, Papadopoulos A. A review and analysis of the literature on public health emergency communication practices. J Community Health. 2021.
23. Majid U, Wasim A, Truong J, Bakshi S. Public trust in governments, health care providers, and the media during pandemics: a systematic review. J Trust Res. 2021.
24. McFadden S, Malik A, Aguolu O, Willebrand K, Omer S. Perceptions of the adult US population regarding the novel coronavirus outbreak. medRxiv. 2020.
25. Schønning K, Dessau R, Jensen TG, Thorsen NM, Wiuff C, Nielsen L, et al. Electronic reporting of diagnostic laboratory test results from all healthcare sectors is a cornerstone of national preparedness and control of COVID-19 in Denmark. APMIS. 2021.
26. Sopory P, Novak J, Day AM, Eckert S, Wilkins L, Padgett D, et al. Trust and public health emergency events: a mixed-methods systematic review. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2021.
27. Tipples G, Kuschak T, Gilmour M. Laboratory response checklist for infectious disease outbreaks: preparedness and response considerations for emerging threats. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2020.
28. Udow-Phillips M, Lantz P. Trust in public health is essential amid the COVID-19 pandemic. J Hosp Med. 2020.
29. Wang H, Cleary P, Little J, Auffray C. Communicating in a public health crisis. Lancet Digit Health. 2020.
30. Wolford T, Sutton J, Mangal CN. Laboratory response to pandemic threats: challenges, needs, and solutions. Health Secur. 2023.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Guo Qianqian, Irza Haicha Pratama, Yensuari (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© The Authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
.png)
