| Literature DB >> 27882866 |
Phillip Wanduru1, Moses Tetui2,3, Doreen Tuhebwe2, Michael Ediau2, Monica Okuga2, Christine Nalwadda2, Elizabeth Ekirapa-Kiracho2, Peter Waiswa2,4, Elizeus Rutebemberwa2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community health workers (CHWs) have the potential to reduce child mortality by improving access to care, especially in remote areas. Uganda has one of the highest child mortality rates globally. Moreover, rural areas bear the highest proportion of this burden. The optimal performance of CHWs is critical. In this study, we assess the performance of CHWs in managing malaria, pneumonia, and diarrhea in the rural district of Lira, in northern Uganda. DESIGNS: A cross-sectional mixed methods study was undertaken to investigate the performance of 393 eligible CHWs in the Lira district of Uganda. Case scenarios were conducted with a medical officer observing CHWs in their management of children suspected of having malaria, pneumonia, or diarrhea. Performance data were collected using a pretested questionnaire with a checklist used by the medical officer to score the CHWs. The primary outcome, CHW performance, is defined as the ability to diagnose and treat malaria, diarrhea, and pneumonia appropriately. Participants were described using a three group performance score (good vs. moderate vs. poor). A binary measure of performance (good vs. poor) was used in multivariable logistic regression to show an association between good performance and a range of independent variables. The qualitative component comprised seven key informant interviews with experts who had informed knowledge with regard to the functionality of CHWs in Lira district.Entities:
Keywords: childhood; community health workers; diarrhea; infectious diseases; malaria; mortality; performance; pneumonia; rural
Year: 2016 PMID: 27882866 PMCID: PMC5122228 DOI: 10.3402/gha.v9.33194
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Action ISSN: 1654-9880 Impact factor: 2.640
Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents
| Variable | Total | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 20–29 | 68 (17.3) |
| 30–39 | 168 (42.8) | |
| 40–49 | 108 (27.5) | |
| 50 > | 49 (13.57) | |
| Sex | Male | 188 (47.8) |
| Female | 205 (52.2) | |
| Education | Primary | 157 (39.9) |
| Secondary | 236 (60.1) | |
| Years of experience | 1–2 | 48 (12.2) |
| 3–5 | 15 (3.82) | |
| Greater than 5 | 330 (84.0) | |
| Marital status | Never married | 59 (14.9) |
| Married | 328 (83.0) | |
| Separated/divorced | 8 (2.0) | |
| Another Source of income | Yes | 134 (34.1) |
| No | 259 (65.9) |
Performance of CHWs in the management of malaria, diarrhea, and pneumonia
| Good score (75+)% | Moderate score (50–74)% | Poor score (0–49)% | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge assessment | |||
| Malaria | 163 (41.5) | 180 (45.8) | 50 (12.7) |
| Diarrhea | 128 (32.6) | 108 (27.5) | 157 (39.9) |
| Pneumonia | 5 (1.3) | 52 (13.2)2 | 336 (85.5) |
| Total | 24 (6.1) | 121 (30.28) | 248 (63.1) |
| Identification of signs, symptoms, and diagnosis in case scenarios | |||
| Malaria | 125 (31.8) | 161 (41.0) | 107 (27.2) |
| Diarrhea | 0 (0) | 6 (1.5) | 387 (98.5) |
| Pneumonia | 0 (0) | 4 (1.0) | 389 (99.0) |
| Total | 0 (0) | 6 (1.5) | 387 (98.5) |
| Prescription in case scenarios (right drug, dose, and instructions for mothers) | |||
| Malaria, | 48 (14.7) | 0 (0) | 278 (85.3) |
| Diarrhea, | 0 (0) | 1 (1.7) | 57 (98.3) |
| Pneumonia, | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 72 (100) |
| Total | 5 (1.3) | 10 (2.5) | 378 (96.2) |
| Total performance | 20 (5.1) | 26 (6.6) | 347 (88.3) |
Summary of social demographic factors associated with performance of CHWs
| Performance categories | Crude analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Variables | Score 0–49%, | Score 50–100%, | UOR (95% CI) |
|
| Age | ||||
| 20–29 | 50 (16.7) | 18 (19.2) | 1 | |
| 30–39 | 124 (41.5) | 44 (46.8) | 0.99 (0.52–1.87) | 0.965 |
| 40–49 | 87 (29.1) | 21 (22.3) | 0.67 (0.33–1.38) | 0.276 |
| 50–59 | 38 (12.7) | 11 (11.7) | 0.80 (0.34–1.90) | 0.619 |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 137 (45.8) | 52 (55.3) | 1 | |
| Female | 162 (54.2) | 42 (44.7) | 0.68 (0.43–1.09) | 0.109 |
| Education level | ||||
| Primary | 151 (40.9) | 6 (25) | 1 | |
| Secondary | 218 (59.1) | 18 (75.0) | 2.08 (0.81–5.36) | 0.130 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Never married | 48 (16.1) | 11 (11.7) | 1 | |
| Married/cohabiting | 246 (82.3) | 82 (87.2) | 1.45 (0.72–2.93) | 0.295 |
| Separated/divorced | 5 (1.7) | 1 (1.1) | 0.87 (0.09–8.24) | 0.905 |
| Another income source | ||||
| Yes | 223 (74.6) | 75 (79.8) | 1 | |
| No | 76 (25.4) | 19 (20.2) | 0.74 (0.42–1.31) | 0.305 |
| Leadership position in community | ||||
| Yes | 253 (84.6) | 82 (87.2) | 1 | |
| No | 46 (15.4) | 12 (12.8) | 0.80 (0.04–1.59) | 0.533 |
OR=odds ratio. 95% CI=95% confidence interval.
Summary of CHW management related factors associated with performance of CHWs
| Performance categories | Crude analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Variables | Score 0–49%, | Score 50–100%, | UOR (95% CI) |
|
| Number of households served | ||||
| Less than 100 | 88 (29.4) | 63 (67.0) | 1 | |
| 100–200 | 125 (41.8) | 16 (17.0) | 0.18 (0.10–0.33) | 0.001 |
| >200 | 86 (28.8) | 15 (16.0) | 0.24 (0.13–0.46) | 0.001 |
| Duration of initial training | ||||
| 2–3 days | 253 (84.6) | 89 (94.7) | 1 | |
| 4–5 days | 46 (15.4) | 5 (5.3) | 0.31 (0.12–0.80) | 0.016 |
| Additional diseases managed by CHW in the community | ||||
| 0 | 92 (30.8) | 12 (12.8) | 1 | |
| 1 | 159 (53.2) | 53 (56.4) | 2.56 (1.30–5.03) | 0.007 |
| 2> | 48 (16.1) | 29 (30.9) | 4.63 (2.17–9.88) | 0.001 |
| Financial incentives in the last month | ||||
| No | 206 (68.9) | 80 (85.1) | 1 | |
| Yes | 93 (31.1) | 14 (14.9) | 2.58 (1.39–4.79) | 0.003 |
| Meeting with supervisor in the last month | ||||
| No | 196 (65.5) | 11 (11.7) | 1 | |
| Yes | 103 (34.5) | 83 (88.3) | 3.97 (2.02–7.77) | 0.001 |
Denotes variables with significant p-values OR=odds ratio. 95% CI=95% confidence interval.
Factors that are independently associated with performance of CHWs
| Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|
| Education level | ||
| Primary | 1 | |
| Secondary | 2.72 (1.50–4.92) | 0.001 |
| Duration of training | ||
| 2–3 days | 1 | |
| 3–5 days | 0.13 (0.04–0.41) | 0.0001 |
| Number of households served | ||
| Less than 100 | 1 | |
| 100–200 | 0.24 (0.12–0.50) | 0.001 |
| >200 | 0.22 (0.10–0.48) | 0.001 |
| Meeting with supervisor in last month | ||
| Yes | 1 | |
| No | 2.52 (1.12–5.70) | 0.026 |
Significant p-value. OR=odds ratio. 95% CI=95% confidence interval.