This paper examines and compares the perceptions of two indigenous cohorts of people in Nepal and Australia. It is revealed that none of the focus group participants in either in Nepal or central Australia had any full participatory experiences. For this reason group discussion is the most appropriate way to involve them in health development program.

In Nepal, the vitamin A program was implemented in their communities and in Australia Aboriginal communities carried out Nutrition program under the governmental health program. Contrasts between these two projects are as follows-

Village of Nepal

10 to 15 people (both male and female, age 20-50) are participated.
Two research assistant were employed to help the author and carry out the discussion.
English language creates problems to communicate.
Group discussion took place either in a public meeting area or under the big tree.
They implemented Vitamin A program

Aboriginal community of Australia

Only males are participated
A local Aboriginal nutrition worker facilitated the author.
Language was not creating any problems.
Project discussion took place on the local sandy creek side or in the women’s centre.
They implemented Nutrition program


Focus On Group Project:

Communities carried out Nutrition program under the governmental health program. And the feedback or the views of the participants are as follows

1. The Vitamin A protects in Nepal had had only a partial precipitation because of lack of communication with the villagers. Many people did not get any benefit from the Vitamin A distribution project. This project was handed over to female volunteers and they did not pass it on to the villagers.
On the other hand Aboriginal participants in Australia also reported that they did not get the information of delivery process, diabetics, and heart-related diseases.
In both societies they need information and communication as well as assistance such as tablets, injections and other services.
2. Health service program creates some confusion like- Aboriginal participants was get similar pill of dilutes from local clinic. They also admitted that they didn’t get any help from government for a vegetable garden project. In central Australia a big problem for health is Aboriginal people wants separate clinic for both male and female.
In Nepal, before the project start people thought that the government will provide money to the poor children. At the end of the project instead of giving money health workers just informed them about the date and the Vitamin A. That means they were totally miss informed.
3. The villagers of Nepal preferred two ways interactions in order to induce their participation in a health program. So, Nutritional development and objectives, a project should always have an interaction with the village people. A very similar view was expressed by many of the Aboriginal participations of the group of discussions.
For like an example: One of the Aboriginal participations strongly believed that there should the two ways dialogue.
Above all, both Nepalese and Central Australia Aboriginal participants preferred ‘group discussion’ as the best way of achieving participatory communication which is as Cohen believes can operate as ‘a forum to get people involved to help create awareness of issues and to subsequently find a consensus on solutions’.
It may also gradually build up confidence in people to directly control affairs affecting their lives, for instance, building up confidence among Aboriginal people in controlling the local community stores without help of an outsider.