Mixed-method analysis reveals effective integration of counseling services in stakeholder collaboration, enhancing community engagement.
Inclusive village development is one of the priorities in achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the implementation of inclusive development at the village level still faces challenges in accommodating the needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups. The integration of counseling services in stakeholder collaboration offers an innovative approach to strengthening community participation in village development. This study aims to analyze the model of inclusive village development through the integration of counseling services in stakeholder collaboration, as well as to identify the factors that influence the effectiveness of its implementation. The study uses a mixed-method approach with a sequential explanatory design. Quantitative data were collected through a survey of 150 respondents from various stakeholders in three pilot villages. Qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and participatory observation. Data analysis used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The study found that the integration of counseling services into stakeholder collaboration increased the participation rate of marginalized communities by 67%. The developed model consists of five main components: (1) identification of inclusive stakeholders, (2) mapping of community counseling needs, (3) design of integrated counseling services, (4) collaborative implementation, and (5) continuous evaluation. Key success factors include village leadership commitment, community counselor capacity, and policy support from local governments. The inclusive village development model with counseling service integration has proven effective in increasing the participation of marginalized groups and strengthening social cohesion. This model can serve as a best practice for replication in other villages with adaptations to local contexts
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dewi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: