Understanding dropout stabilization and the factors affecting the return to primary school: a qualitative study

Journal of Medicine and Life · 6 authors, 4 centres

AI SUMMARY

FIDELITY 100%

This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.

AGENT 01 · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

TRACE TO SOURCE

“

TL;DR

This qualitative study of 47 participants in Iran explored factors that make children's dropout from primary school permanent and what might encourage a return. It found that feelings of academic failure, shame, and family satisfaction with the child working stabilize dropout, while financial incentives and flexible training can promote a return.

Full summary

821 CHARS

This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 47 participants, including dropouts, parents, teachers, and community leaders, to explore factors stabilizing primary school dropout and barriers to return. Thematic analysis identified two main categories: 'dropout stabilization facilitators' (e.g., academic decline, shame, relief from school pressures, family satisfaction) and 'dropout stabilization inhibitors' (e.g., financial incentives, intensive and flexible training). Findings suggest that after dropping out, children often adopt new roles like work or family care, reinforcing the decision. Barriers to return include age limits for re-enrollment and lack of tuition compensation. Timely interventions, financial support, and informal care were noted as potential ways to prevent permanent dropout.

STUDY TYPE

other

SPECIALTY

public health

SUMMARISED BY

AI pipeline

FIDELITY CHECK

100% · A

ORIGINAL PAPER

PMC10600684

Understanding dropout stabilization and the factors affecting the return to primary school: a qualitative study

Journal of Medicine and Life

READ THE FULL PAPER

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to understand dropout stabilization and the factors affecting the return to primary school using a qualitative approach. Data were collected from 47 semi-structured interviews with dropouts, their parents, children who returned to school, social facilitators, school teachers, local community religious leaders, and education activists. Following Graneheim and Lundman's method, thematic data analysis revealed two main categories: “dropout stabilization facilitators” and “dropout stabilization inhibitors”, with 10 subcategories. Dropout stabilization facilitators included the 7 subcategories of perceiving academic decline, inhibitory effects of shame, barriers to re-enrollment, relief from educational pressures and norms, the transformed value system, family satisfaction, and the inefficiency of the formal care system. On the other hand, dropout stabilization inhibitors included the three subcategories of sensitivity to the informal care system, financial incentives, and intensive and flexible training. Some events after dropping out of school resulted in stabilized and definite dropouts. Children at primary schools do not have a clear understanding of the importance of achievements and the effects of education, perceiving dropout as an escape from educational norms and associated hardships. Transitioning into adult roles, such as marriage, motherhood, and assuming responsibilities for siblings, often leads individuals to prioritize other aspects of life over educational achievements. Barriers, such as age limits for being admitted to schools and lack of mechanisms for compensating tuition fees, lead to family dissatisfaction and further reinforce the decision to withdraw their children from school. Factors such as timely actions and follow-ups by schools, financial incentives, and brief interventions provided by the informal network are likely to prevent students from dropping out of school.

CITATION EXPORT

Ayoub Eslamian, Maliheh Arshi, Siyamak Tahmasebi et al.. Understanding dropout stabilization and the factors affecting the return to primary school: a qualitative study. Journal of Medicine and Life. (2023). https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2022-0022

AUTHORS

6 · 4 CENTRES

Ayoub Eslamian, Maliheh Arshi, Siyamak Tahmasebi, Fardin Alipour, Hassan Rafiey, Gelavizh Karimijavan

1Department of Social Work, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2Department of Preschool Education, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3Department of Social Welfare, Social Welfare Management Research Center, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran