| Literature DB >> 25090111 |
Mary B Adam1, Maria Dillmann2, Mei-kuang Chen3, Simon Mbugua1, Joram Ndung'u1, Priscilla Mumbi1, Eunice Waweru1, Peter Meissner2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Volunteer community health workers (CHWs) form an important element of many health systems, and in Kenya these volunteers are the foundation for promoting behavior change through health education, earlier case identification, and timely referral to trained health care providers. This study examines the effectiveness of a community health worker project conducted in rural Kenya that sought to promote improved knowledge of maternal newborn health and to increase deliveries under skilled attendance.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25090111 PMCID: PMC4121293 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Curriculum Topics.
| Session # | Topics |
| 1 | Community engagement and interacting with families, roles and responsibility of CHW, Importance of home based maternal and newborn care, importance of a birth plan, ANC, facility delivery |
| 2 | Normal pregnancy, human reproductive physiology, danger signs in pregnancy, importance of ANC, facility delivery, know HIV status, tetanus immunization |
| 3 | Assessment of the newborn, danger signs in newborns, how to do referrals and home visits, |
| 4 | Immediate care of newborns, kangaroo care, cord care, |
| 5 | Breast feeding and general nutrition for pregnant woman and feeding of infants |
| 6 | Post pregnancy care, danger signs after delivery, family planning, data collection for CHWs and linkages with health system |
Density of CHWs to households.
| Study-site | Time of exposure to the project | Number of trained CHWs | CHW ratio per household |
| Eburru | 3 years (3 classes of about 15) | 42 | 1 CHW per 37 households |
| Nyakio | 3 years (2 classes of about 15 and anotherclass began just after study data collection) | 34 | 1 CHW per 252 households |
| Kinale | 18 months (one class of 7 completed and another class of 12had started at the time of data collection) | 7 | 1 CHW per 820 households |
Demographics of each site.
| Region | Eburru N = 373 | Kinale N = 484 | Nyakio N = 482 | ||||
| Exposure to teaching | No N = 272 | Yes N = 101 | No N = 379 | Yes N = 105 | No N = 295 | Yes N = 187 | |
| Age | Mode age in years | 26–30 | 26–30 | 26–30 | 36–40 | 31–35 | 31–35 |
| Education | Mean number of years of school attendance | 6.7 | 7.6 | 7.9 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 8.4 |
| No schooling | 8% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 1% | |
| Some primary | 40% | 39% | 37% | 29% | 34% | 32% | |
| Completed primary | 43% | 47% | 41% | 44% | 37% | 39% | |
| Some secondary or more | 9% | 13% | 21% | 25% | 27% | 28% | |
| Economic status | Permanent house (Concrete Block) | 4% | 2% | 11% | 7% | 22% | 31% |
| Semi-permanent house (wood frame) | 42% | 23% | 86% | 92% | 71% | 64% | |
| Temporary house (sticks and mud) | 54% | 75% | 2% | 1% | 7% | 5% | |
| Family status | Married or living together | 86% | 83% | 76% | 85% | 75% | 85% |
| Widowed | 1% | 2% | 5% | 0% | 4% | 3% | |
| Divorced or separate | 3% | 5% | 6% | 8% | 8% | 4% | |
| Single or never been married | 9% | 10% | 13% | 7% | 13% | 8% | |
| Number of pregnancies | Mean number of carried pregnancies per woman | 3.6 | 4.1 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 3.7 |
| Age of the mother during first delivery | <18 years | 37% | 39% | 33% | 27% | 25% | 27% |
| 19–22 years | 50% | 48% | 50% | 53% | 49% | 50% | |
| 23–30 years | 13% | 13% | 16% | 19% | 25% | 22% | |
| >31 years | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 0% | |
| Distance to next health facility by foot in time | <1 hour | 44% | 41% | 70% | 80% | 86% | 85% |
| 1–2 hours | 23% | 36% | 29% | 19% | 13% | 13% | |
| >2 hours | 33% | 22% | 1.0% | 1.0% | 1% | 2% | |
| Mode distance in minutes | 60–90 | 60–90 | 30–60 | 15–30 | 30–60 | 30–60 | |
*Denotes significant differences at the p<0.05 level using Chai Square or t-test to compare participants and non-participants.
Figure 1The percent of women delivering at a facility in Eburru, where the intervention began in 2009.
The diverging lines after 2009 compare women who participated in the intervention with those who did not. (X = 3.83 (1, N = 68); p = 0.05.
Figure 3The percent of women delivering at a facility in Nyakio, where the intervention began in 2010.
The diverging lines after 2010 compare women who participated in the intervention with those who did not. (X = 0.44 (1, N = 83); p = 0.83).