Zohra S Lassi1, Giorgio Cometto2, Luis Huicho3, Zulfiqar A Bhutta1. 1. Division of Women and Child Health, Aga Khan University, PO Box 3500, Karachi 74550, Pakistan . 2. Global Health Workforce Alliance Secretariat, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland . 3. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru .
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of care provided by mid-level health workers. METHODS: Experimental and observational studies comparing mid-level health workers and higher level health workers were identified by a systematic review of the scientific literature. The quality of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria and data were analysed using Review Manager. FINDINGS: Fifty-three studies, mostly from high-income countries and conducted at tertiary care facilities, were identified. In general, there was no difference between the effectiveness of care provided by mid-level health workers in the areas of maternal and child health and communicable and noncommunicable diseases and that provided by higher level health workers. However, the rates of episiotomy and analgesia use were significantly lower in women giving birth who received care from midwives alone than in those who received care from doctors working in teams with midwives, and women were significantly more satisfied with care from midwives. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low or very low. The search also identified six observational studies, all from Africa, that compared care from clinical officers, surgical technicians or non-physician clinicians with care from doctors. Outcomes were generally similar. CONCLUSION: No difference between the effectiveness of care provided by mid-level health workers and that provided by higher level health workers was found. However, the quality of the evidence was low. There is a need for studies with a high methodological quality, particularly in Africa - the region with the greatest shortage of health workers.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of care provided by mid-level health workers. METHODS: Experimental and observational studies comparing mid-level health workers and higher level health workers were identified by a systematic review of the scientific literature. The quality of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria and data were analysed using Review Manager. FINDINGS: Fifty-three studies, mostly from high-income countries and conducted at tertiary care facilities, were identified. In general, there was no difference between the effectiveness of care provided by mid-level health workers in the areas of maternal and child health and communicable and noncommunicable diseases and that provided by higher level health workers. However, the rates of episiotomy and analgesia use were significantly lower in women giving birth who received care from midwives alone than in those who received care from doctors working in teams with midwives, and women were significantly more satisfied with care from midwives. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low or very low. The search also identified six observational studies, all from Africa, that compared care from clinical officers, surgical technicians or non-physician clinicians with care from doctors. Outcomes were generally similar. CONCLUSION: No difference between the effectiveness of care provided by mid-level health workers and that provided by higher level health workers was found. However, the quality of the evidence was low. There is a need for studies with a high methodological quality, particularly in Africa - the region with the greatest shortage of health workers.
Authors: I K Warriner; O Meirik; M Hoffman; C Morroni; J Harries; N T My Huong; N D Vy; A H Seuc Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-12-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Tahmeed Ahmed; Robert E Black; Simon Cousens; Kathryn Dewey; Elsa Giugliani; Batool A Haider; Betty Kirkwood; Saul S Morris; H P S Sachdev; Meera Shekar Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-02-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M O Mundinger; R L Kane; E R Lenz; A M Totten; W Y Tsai; P D Cleary; W T Friedewald; A L Siu; M L Shelanski Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-01-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tu M Tran; Mackenson Saint-Fort; Marie-Djenane Jose; Jean Hugues Henrys; Jacques B Pierre Pierre; Meena N Cherian; Richard A Gosselin Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Marcel Schmude; Nahya Salim; Hila Azadzoy; Mustafa Bane; Elizabeth Millen; Lisa O'Donnell; Philipp Bode; Ewelina Türk; Ria Vaidya; Stephen Gilbert Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-06-07
Authors: Jennifer J Palmer; Farai Chinanayi; Alice Gilbert; Devan Pillay; Samantha Fox; Jyoti Jaggernath; Kovin Naidoo; Ronnie Graham; Daksha Patel; Karl Blanchet Journal: Hum Resour Health Date: 2014-08-15