| Literature DB >> 32532016 |
Rose Nabi Deborah Karimi Muthuri1, Flavia Senkubuge1, Charles Hongoro1,2,3.
Abstract
Healthcare workers are an essential element in the functionality of the health system. However, the health workforce impact on health systems tends to be overlooked. Countries within the Sub-Saharan region such as the six in the East African Community (EAC) have weak and sub-optimally functioning health systems. As countries globally aim to attain Universal Health Coverage and the Sustainable Development Goal 3, it is crucial that the significant role of the health workforce in this achievement is recognized. In this systematic review, we aimed to synthesise the determinants of motivation as reported by healthcare workers in the EAC between 2009 and 2019. A systematic search was performed using four databases, namely Cochrane library, EBSCOhost, ProQuest and PubMed. The eligible articles were selected and reviewed based on the authors' selection criteria. A total of 30 studies were eligible for review. All six countries that are part of the EAC were represented in this systematic review. Determinants as reported by healthcare workers in six countries were synthesised. Individual-level-, organizational/structural- and societal-level determinants were reported, thus revealing the roles of the healthcare worker, health facilities and the government in terms of health systems and the community or society at large in promoting healthcare workers' motivation. Monetary and non-monetary determinants of healthcare workers' motivation reported are crucial for informing healthcare worker motivation policy and health workforce strengthening in East Africa.Entities:
Keywords: East Africa; health systems; health workforce strengthening; healthcare workers; motivation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32532016 PMCID: PMC7349547 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare8020164
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram on healthcare workers’ determinants of motivation in the East African Community (EAC), 2009–2019.
Quantitative Studies.
| Author(s), Year of Publication | Country | Main Objective | Sample Size | Main Research Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leonard et al., (2010) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | To examine the behaviour of 80 practitioners from the Arusha region of Tanzania for evidence of professionalism. | n = 80 | Among 80 clinicians, approximately 20% were reported to have professionalism, an intrinsic motivator. Professionalism was characterised by having a small know–do gap and provision of high-quality diagnosis and high-quality communication with clients. |
| Momanyi et al., (2016) [ | Republic of Kenya | To determine the influence of training on motivation among health workers in Narok County, Kenya. | n = 258 | The health workers reported having an average level of motivation. On-the-job training significantly predicted general motivation among the health workers |
| Mpembeni et al., (2015) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | To inform future scale-up, this study assessed motivation and satisfaction among these community health workers (CHWs). | n = 228 | Motivational determinants explained 62% variance among the 228 CHWs, namely extrinsic stimuli, skill utilization, respect and hope, altruism and intrinsic needs. Statistically significant motivational determinants of CHWs included altruism |
| Musinguzi et al., (2018) [ | Republic of Uganda | To examine the relationship between transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles and motivation, job satisfaction and teamwork of health workers in Uganda. | n = 564 | Health workers were motivated more by health facility managers who used transformational leadership styles |
| Sato et al., (2017) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | To measure three aspects of motivation: Management, Performance and Individual Aspects among health workers deployed in rural primary level government health facilities. | n = 263 | Predictors of motivation among the 263 health workers were clear job descriptions |
| Siril et al., (2013) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | To study healthcare workers (HCWs) stress, motivation, and perceived ability to meet patient needs were assessed in the United States President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief PEPFAR-supported urban HIV care and treatment clinics (CTCs) in Tanzania. | n = 279 | Healthcare workers had significantly lower motivation than those in management |
| Winn et al., (2018) [ | Republic of Kenya | To identify factors related to the motivation and satisfaction of CHWs working in a malaria community case management CCM program in two sub-counties in Western Kenya. | n = 70 | Influential determinants of motivation among the CHWs included altruistic personal desire to help the community |
Mixed Methods Studies.
| Author(s), Year of Publication | Country | Main Objective | Sample Size | Main Research Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brunie et al., (2014) [ | Republic of Uganda | To examine factors related to CHW motivation and level of activity in 3 family planning programs in Uganda. | n = 226 | Facilitating determinants of the CHWs motivation included acquiring new skills, social responsibility, enhanced status, helping the community, supportive supervision with helpful feedback, clients’ interest in family planning (programme) and hope for other opportunities such as future employment and advancements. |
| Barriers to the CHWs motivation were lack of transport, stockouts of drugs and essential supplies, inability to support their own family from their job and complains from clients on family planning. | ||||
| Chandler et al., (2009) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | To evaluate factors affecting motivation, including reasons for varying levels of motivation, amongst clinicians in Tanzania. | n = 211 | Quantitatively, among 177 clinicians’ higher salary was associated with intrinsic motivation and, was a prerequisite determinant for any other intervention to change motivation using non-financial ways. |
| Qualitatively, among 34 clinicians, predominantly monetary-based determinants, the prestigious perception of status of being a healthcare professional and organizational social and physical environment were determinants of motivation. | ||||
| Chin-Quee et al., (2016) [ | Republic of Rwanda | To compare intervention and control districts and vis-à-vis CHWs’ work-related activities, their perceptions of workload manageability and reports of job satisfaction, motivation and service quality, as well as their clients’ reports of satisfaction and quality of care. | n = 400 | The top three determinants of motivation among the CHWs’ in Rwanda were altruism, characterised by their desire to help their community; acquiring novel knowledge and skill; and getting and maintaining admirable professional status in the community. Receiving monetary and material goods was ranked low in the list of determinants of motivation among the community health workers. However, no statistically significant differences in determinants of the CHWs’ motivation were reported between the intervention and control groups. |
| Kok et al., (2018) [ | Republic of Kenya | To assess whether this intervention influenced CHWs’ perceptions of supervision and CHW motivation over the period of 1 year after the implementation. | n = 74 | Differences in the quantitative and qualitative results were evident regarding the effect of the supervision intervention on CHWs’ motivation. Qualitatively, CHWs reported the intervention enhancing their motivation due to its enhanced recognition, more support, increased knowledge, sharing the burden/workload and feeling of belongingness and team spirit. However, qualitatively, no statistically significant determinants were identified, but work conscientiousness significantly decreased from the baseline to midline |
| Ojakaa et al., (2014) [ | Republic of Kenya | To investigate factors influencing motivation and retention of HCWs at primary health care facilities in three different settings in Kenya: the remote area of Turkana, the relatively accessible region of Machakos, and the disadvantaged informal urban settlement of Kibera in Nairobi. | n = 404 | Among 404 healthcare workers, two statistically significant determinants of motivation were reported: manageability of workload had an odds ratio of |
| Qualitatively, facilitators of motivation included satisfaction with salary, job security, positive response from patients and good relations in the community. Demotivators were discrimination in training, poor housing quality, language barrier for non-locals, transport problems, lack of electricity, limited education choices, career stagnation, no allowances and no mentoring support from supervisors. | ||||
| Sanou et al., (2016) [ | Republic of Uganda | To investigate the factors influencing community health workers (CHWs) motivation and retention in health service delivery. | n = 134 | Qualitatively identified determinants of motivation among CHWs comprised community recognition, status, regular training and provision of supplies. |
| Quantitatively determinants of motivation included training opportunities (82.8%), opportunity to serve the community (79.9%), social knowledge or understanding (64.2%), supervision (41.0%), status in the community (53.0%), good working conditions (41.0%), supplementary income (24.6%), community support (farm work) (9.7%) and national benefits (0.7%). | ||||
| Zinnen et al., (2012) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | To contribute to empirical evidence on human resources for health motivation factors to assist policymakers in promoting effective and realistic interventions. | n = 285 | Powerful motivators of the 285 human resources for health were primarily monetary, including salary and allowances. |
| Non-monetary motivators varied, including the working equipment and conditions (environment), training and supervision, increased staff, better work environment, transport, good housing, enough drugs and supplies and better management. |
Qualitative Studies.
| Author(s), Year of Publication | Country | Main Objective | Sample Size | Main Research Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banek et al., (2015) [ | Republic of Uganda | To understand the level of support available, and the capacity and motivation of community health workers to deliver these expanded services, we interviewed community medicine distributors (CMDs), who had been involved in the home-based management of fever (HBMF) programme in Tororo district, shortly before integrated community case management (ICCM) was adopted. | n = 100 | The determinants of motivation involved an opportunity to be altruistic, gaining social status and recognition, creating future opportunities for employment and health-related knowledge gain. |
| Demotivation sources were the community or government having unrealistic expectations, limited drugs and essential supplies such as gloves, poor supervision, and lack of compensation and respect as a result. | ||||
| Daniels et al., (2013) [ | Republic of Kenya | To present two distinct motivations for a clinical research career that informed women’s decision-making to pursue international training and describe two common steps in the pathway toward a clinical research career for women in Kenya. | n = 12 | Two main determinants of motivation among the women medical doctors were professionally related motivators and attainment of family–career balance through engaging in clinical research. Demotivating determinants of the doctors included limited institutional capacity, low morale in the workplace and limited intellectual engagement. |
| Greenspan et al., (2013) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | This study aimed to explore sources of community health workers motivation to inform programmes in Tanzania and similar contexts. | n = 20 | Individual sources of motivation by CHWs comprised intrinsic desire to volunteer and support community, dedication to public service, desire for knowledge to help self and family and desire to educate the community. |
| Organizational sources of motivation were monetary support, hope for future employment (job security), training tools for work and supervision. | ||||
| Family sources of motivation were moral, material and monetary support | ||||
| Community sources of motivation included recognition and encouragement through positive reception and acquiring fame in the community. | ||||
| Kaye et al., (2010) [ | Republic of Uganda | To assess the influence of this training experience on students’ willingness, readiness and competence to work in rural health facilities by surveying 60 recent graduates of Makerere University Faculty of Medicine, who completed their studies during the transition from traditional to problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum. | n = 60 | Motivating determinants of the medical and nursing graduates to work in the rural areas included the desire to save lives (altruism), personal background (ease of communication) security, personal safety and opportunity for career advancement. |
| Demotivating determinants of working in rural areas were inequitable and poor remuneration, high workload due to understaffing, no time for holidays, overwhelming responsibilities of clinical care, inadequate planning and heavy administrative work, low intellectual stimulation, inadequate supplies, equipment and supportive supervision, low access to continuing professional education, limited opportunities and discrimination in remuneration. | ||||
| Mbilinyi et al., (2011) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | To explore the challenges generated by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) care and treatment and their impact on health worker motivation in Mbeya Region, Tanzania. | n = 30 | Positive determinants of motivation (motivators) were mainly at the individual level, and the majority of the demotivators were at the organizational or health system structural level, with fewer demotivators being at the social-cultural environmental level. |
| Mbindyo et al., (2009) [ | Republic of Kenya | To explore contextual influences on worker motivation, a factor that may modify the effect of an intervention aimed at changing clinical practices in Kenyan hospitals. | n = 185 | Individual-level determinants of the healthcare workers’ motivation were altruism; appreciation; prestige from patients and family; professional attachment; sense of job security, especially in government; acquisition of career experience for career growth and development, and the challenge of meeting demands and expectations of patients. |
| Organizational-level factors of motivation were resources and allocation, both human and non-human; relationship with colleagues and supervisors; fairness in treatment across cadres; incentives, both monetary and non-monetary; communication between hospital management and colleagues; recognition and appreciation, and commitment of managers to improving staff condition. | ||||
| Health system (structural)-level factors of motivation comprised schemes of service such as clarity of career progress, promotion, provision of allowances and salaries, career development possibilities and accessibility to training opportunities. | ||||
| Mubyazi et al., (2012) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | To describes the supply-related drivers of motivation and performance of health workers (HWs) in administering IPTp doses among other antenatal care (ANC) services delivered in public and private health facilities (HFs) in Tanzania, using a case study of Mkuranga and Mufindi districts. | n = 78 | Key determinants of motivation/demotivation included poor working conditions of the health facilities (water, electricity, furniture); health worker shortage, leading to excess workload; shortage of essential drugs and supplies such as working gear and furniture. Private health facilities were more motivated because of better staff residences, better buildings, equipment, available clean water, electricity and cups for patients than public health facilities were. Public health facilities had more staff cadre such as clinical officers, nurses and midwives than private health facilities. |
| Mugo et al., (2018) [ | Republic of South Sudan | To explore challenges and barriers confronted by maternal and child healthcare providers in delivering adequate quality health services to women during antenatal care visits, facility delivery and post-delivery care. | n = 18 | Barriers to motivation in South Sudan included low salary, poor management and coordination, lack of supervision, shortage of healthcare workers, lack of training opportunities, lack of essential medical equipment, lack of security and absence of rewards (monetary e.g., bonuses or non-monetary incentives). |
| Prytherch et al., (2012) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | To provide detailed understanding of the influences on the motivation, performance and job satisfaction of providers at rural, primary-level facilities were sought to inform a research project in its early stages. | n = 35 | Key sources of motivation among the maternal and neonatal health (MNH) were community appreciation, perceived governmental and development support (per diems) and on-the-job learning (such as seminars and workshops). |
| Prime sources of demotivation reported were mainly lack of fair compensation, unsupportive management, inflexible schedules, favouritism in promotions, uncertainty in transfer, poor security, poor health and safety, problems with accommodation and feelings of helplessness (due to lack of equipment and resources). | ||||
| Ochieng et al., (2014) [ | Republic of Kenya | To find out, from stakeholders’ perspectives, the type of tasks to be shifted to community health workers and the appropriate strategies to motivate and retain them. | n = 48 | Strong motivators included close supportive supervision, means of identification, adequate resource allocation, continuous training and compensation. |
| Rudasingwa et al., (2017) [ | Republic of Burundi | To what extent health workers are motivated and influenced by the Performance-Based Financing (PBF) scheme. | n = 36 | Performance-based financing (PBF) motivated all the health workers and increased their teamwork and effort and enhanced their drive to change to implement best practice in their quality of service delivered. |
| Singh et al., (2016) [ | Republic of Uganda | To understand whether full-time professional CHWs can potentially work with volunteers in the community to widen their reach and scope, and if so, what motivators might be of key importance to the community health volunteers (CHVs) remaining active in the field. | n = 81 | Motivating determinants included desire to share health-related knowledge, relationship building, seeking health knowledge, being part of and seeing behavioural change within the community and the hope of gaining employment status. |
| Strachan et al., (2015) [ | Republic of Uganda | The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how a behavioural theory, which accounts for the influence of group identification, in combination with data generated from qualitative interviews with CHWs and stakeholders, can be used to inform the design of interventions to improve CHW motivation, retention and performance in two settings—Uganda and Mozambique—with diverse, government-led HW programmes. | n = 87 | The formative research in Uganda showed determinants of motivation were helping fellow community members; desire to provide proper healthcare services to the community; gaining their trust, respect and appreciation; learning; meeting new people; receiving validation and feedback from supervisors, and access to adequate resources such as drugs. |
| Stringhini et al., (2009) [ | United Republic of Tanzania | To assess how informal earnings/payments might help boost health worker motivation and retention in Kibaha, Tanzania. | n = 64 | Accepting of informal payment from patients to health workers had negative effects on health workers, access to and quality of health care services provided. |
| Takasugi et al., (2012) [ | Republic of Kenya | This study sought to ascertain these motivational drivers. | n = 23 | Both financial and non-financial motivational drivers were identified, including monetary and non-monetary rewards, specifically personal recognition, supportive supervision, personal development, training opportunities and good working conditions. |
| Witter et al., (2017) [ | Republic of Uganda | To examine patterns in expressed motivation to join the profession across different cadres, based on 103 life history interviews conducted in northern Uganda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and Zimbabwe. | n = 26 | Emerging determinants of motivation among the health workers were personal calling, professional status (admiration and respect), economically free tuition, perceived better pay, accommodation and transport, educational background, proximity to essential facilities and life events. |
Figure 2Percentage of studies represented in this review per EAC country.
Methodological quality of quantitative studies included.
| Study | Critical Appraisal Checklist Item Numbers | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| Leonard et al., (2010) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y |
| Momanyi et al., (2016) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y |
| Mpembeni et al., (2015) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y |
| Musinguzi et al., (2018) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y |
| Sato et al., (2017) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y |
| Siril et al., (2013) [ | Y | Y | Y | U | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Winn et al., (2018) [ | Y | Y | Y | U | N | N | Y | Y |
All the quantitative studies included were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist tools in accordance with the quantitative study design. Y: Yes; N: No; U: Unclear.
Methodological quality of qualitative studies included.
| Study | Critical Appraisal Checklist Item Numbers | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| Banek et al., (2015) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Daniels et al., (2013) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Greenspan et al., (2013) [ | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| Kaye et al., (2010) [ | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | U | Y | Y |
| Mbilinyi et al., (2011) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Mbindyo et al., (2009) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Mubyazi et al., (2012) [ | Y | Y | U | U | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Mugo et al., (2018) [ | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Prytherch et al., (2012) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Ochieng et al., (2014) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Rudasingwa et al., (2017) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Singh et al., (2016) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Strachan et al., (2015) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Stringhini et al., (2009) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | U | Y |
| Takasugi et al., (2012) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Witter et al., (2017) [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y |
All the mixed methods studies included were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018. Y: Yes; N: No; C: Cannot tell; -: Not applicable.
Methodological quality of mixed methods studies included.
| Categories of Study Designs | Quality Checklist Item Numbers | Study | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brunie et al., (2014) [ | Chandler et al., (2009) [ | Chin-Quee et al., (2016) [ | Kok et al., (2018) [ | Ojakaa et al., (2014) [ | Sanou et al., (2016) [ | Zinnen et al., (2012) [ | ||
| Screening questions (for all types) | S1 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| S2 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| 1. Qualitative | 1.1 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 1.2 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| 1.3 | Y | Y | C | Y | N | Y | Y | |
| 1.4 | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | |
| 1.5 | Y | Y | C | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| 2. Quantitative randomised controlled trials | 2.1 | − | − | − | C | − | − | − |
| 2.2 | − | − | − | N | − | − | − | |
| 2.3 | − | − | − | N | − | − | − | |
| 2.4 | − | − | − | C | − | − | − | |
| 2.5 | − | − | − | Y | − | − | − | |
| 3. Quantitative non−randomised | 3.1 | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| 3.2 | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | |
| 3.3 | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | |
| 3.4 | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | |
| 3.5 | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | |
| 4. Quantitative descriptive | 4.1 | Y | Y | Y | C | Y | C | Y |
| 4.2 | Y | Y | Y | C | C | C | Y | |
| 4.3 | Y | Y | C | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| 4.4 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | C | Y | |
| 4.5 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| 5. Mixed methods | 4.1 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 4.2 | Y | Y | N | Y | C | Y | Y | |
| 4.3 | Y | Y | C | Y | C | Y | Y | |
| 4.4 | Y | Y | C | Y | Y | C | Y | |
| 4.5 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
All the qualitative studies included were appraised using the JBI checklist tool in accordance with the qualitative study design. Y: Yes; N: No; U: Unclear.