| Literature DB >> 32615960 |
Helen Mwiinga Chipukuma1, Hikabasa Halwiindi2, Joseph Mumba Zulu3, Steven Chifundo Azizi4, Choolwe Jacobs4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community Health Workers (CHWs) are an important human resource in improving community malaria intervention coverages and success in reducing malaria incidence has been attributed to them. However, despite this attribution, malaria resurgence cases have been reported in various countries including Zambia. This study aims to evaluate the implementation fidelity of CHW roles in malaria prevention and control programs in Livingstone through performance and service quality assessment.Entities:
Keywords: Assessment; Community health worker; Community malaria agent; Evaluation; Fidelity; Implementation; Malaria; Performance; Policy; Quality
Year: 2020 PMID: 32615960 PMCID: PMC7331272 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05458-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Demographic characteristic of CHWs
| 0 | no monthly reports submitted | lowest (0 score) | none | less than 20, | less than 20 |
| 1 | 1 or 2 submitted | low (1–4) | 1 or 2 sessions, | 20–39, | 20–39 |
| 2 | 3 submitted, | middle (5–8) | 3 | 40–59, | 40–59 |
| 3 | 4 submitted, | high (9–12) | 4 sensitization | 60–79 | 60–79 |
| 4 | 5 or full reports submitted | Highest (13–16). | 5 and above | 80–100 | 80–100 |
Quality Measure
| Service quality | 5 | 5 | Active detection |
| Diagnosis and treatment | |||
| Prescription of anti-malarial | |||
| Follow up | |||
| preventive measures |
Demographic characteristic of CHWs
| Nakatindi | 19 | 56 |
| Libuyu | 15 | 44 |
| male | 10 | 29 |
| female | 24 | 71 |
| < 40 | 6 | 18 |
| 40+ | 28 | 82 |
| no formal | 1 | 3 |
| /primary | 8 | 23 |
| Secondary/ | 24 | 71 |
| College/university | 1 | 3 |
| Single | 17 | 50 |
| married | 17 | 50 |
| Business | 18 | 53 |
| Piece works | 16 | 47 |
| < K500 | 16 | 47 |
| K500-K1500 | 18 | 52 |
| < 6 | 12 | 35 |
| > 6 | 22 | 64 |
| None | 17 | 50 |
| 1+ | 17 | 50 |
| 6–12 months | 17 | 50 |
| More than 1 year | 17 | 50 |
Performance level indicators
| 4 | < 4 reports | 4+ reports/6 | |
| Scores | 27% (9) | 73% (25) | |
| 4 | < 13 sessions | 13 + sessions/19 | |
| Scores | 55% (19) | 44% (15) | |
| 4 | < 80% | 80%+ | |
| Scores | 71% (19) | 29% (10) | |
| 4 | < 80% | 80%+ | |
| Scores | 85% (29) | 15% (5) | |
| 4 | < 9 | 9+/16 | |
| Scores | 3% (1) | 97% (33) | |
Quality measures indicators
| 1 | Active detection | 1 | ||
| Scores | 11 (32.4%) | 23 (67.7%) | ||
| 2 | Diagnosis and treatment | 1 | ||
| Scores | 25 (73.5%) | 9 (26.5%) | ||
| 3 | Prescription of anti-malarial | 1 | ||
| Scores | 31 (91.2%) | 3 (8.8%) | ||
| 4 | Follow up | 1 | ||
| Scores | 18 (52.9%) | 16 (47.1%) | ||
| 5 | preventive measures | 1 | ||
| Scores | 23 (67.6%) | 11 (32.4%) | ||
Community Malaria Management by CHWs
| Health education | ||
| Yes | 33 (23.6%) | 87 (26.9%) |
| No | 107 (76.4%) | 237 (73.2%) |
| RDT | ||
| Yes | 39 (26.6%) | 49 (15.1%) |
| No | 101 (72.1%) | 275 (84.9%) |
| Treatment | ||
| Yes | 20 (14.3%) | 0 |
| No | 120 (85.7%) | 324 (100%) |
Determinants of CHWs performance in the malaria prevention and control interventions at community
| Education | |||
| No formal and primary | 8 (88.9) | 1 (11.1) | 1.0 |
| Secondary/tertiary | 21 (84.0) | 4 (16.0) | |
| Clinic catchment | |||
| Libuyu | 12 (80.0) | 3 (20.0) | 0.634 |
| Nakatindi | 17 (89.5) | 2 (10.5) | |
| Age categories | |||
| < 40 years | 4 (66.0) | 2 (34.0) | 0.25 |
| 40+ years | 25 (89.3) | 3 (10.7) | |
| Occupation | |||
| Business | 16 (88.9) | 2 (11.1) | 0.6 |
| Other | 13 (81.2) | 3 (18.8) | |
| Marital status | |||
| Married | 12 (70.9) | 5 (29.4) | 0.015* |
| Other | 17 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Income | |||
| < K500 | 14 (87.5) | 2 (12.5) | 1.0 |
| K500-K1500 | 15 (83.3) | 3 (16.7) | |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 7 (70.0) | 3 (30.0) | 0.138 |
| Female | 22 (91.7) | 2 (8.3) | |
| No of household members | |||
| < 6 | 11 (91.6) | 1 (8.4) | 0.635 |
| 6+ | 18 (81.8) | 4 (18.2) | |
| No of children U-5 | |||
| 0 | 15 (88.2) | 2 (11.8) | 1.0 |
| 1+ | 14 (82.3) | 3 (17.7) | |
| Work experience in malaria | |||
| 6-12 months | 17 (100.0) | 0 | 0.04* |
| Above 12 months | 12 (70.5) | 5 (29.5) | |
| Reason for being CHW | |||
| Recommended by NHC | 21 (84.0) | 4 (16.0) | 0.73 |
| Interest in malaria | 8 (88.9) | 1 (11.1) | |
| Incentive/payment received | |||
| Yes | 1 (100.0) | 0 | 1.0 |
| No | 28 (84.8) | 5 (15.2) | |
| Supervised | |||
| Never | 0 | 1 (100) | 0.303 |
| Every 6 months | 2 (100.0) | 0 | |
| Every 3 months | 16 (84.2) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Monthly | 11 (91.7) | 1 (8.3) | |
| Supervisor | |||
| Clinic | 1 (20.0) | 4 (80.0) | 0.002* |
| NHC Chairman | 5 (100.0) | 0 | |
| NGO | 23 (95.8) | 1 (4.2) | |
| Record for reports | |||
| Register | 0 | 1 (100.0) | 0.05* |
| Phone | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) | |
| Paper | 3 (75.0) | 1 (25.0) | |
| Book | 24 (92.3) | 2 (7.7) | |
*significant finding
Distribution of study participants according to age, work experience, marital status and commodity stock out
| Characteristic | N | Work experience in years | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 3+ | |||||
| n | (%) | n | (%) | |||
| Age category | 1.00 | |||||
| 22–39 | 6 | 3 | 17.6 | 3 | 17.6 | |
| 40+ | 28 | 14 | 82.4 | 14 | 82.4 | |
| Marital status | 0.016* | |||||
| Single | 17 | 12 | 70.6 | 5 | 29.4 | |
| Married | 17 | 5 | 29.4 | 12 | 70.6 | |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Single | Married | |||||
| n | (%) | n | (%) | |||
| Age category | 0.175 | |||||
| 22–39 | 6 | 1 | 5.9 | 5 | 29.4 | |
| 40+ | 28 | 16 | 94.1 | 12 | 70.6 | |
| Commodity stock-out | 1.00 | |||||
| No | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5.9 | |
| Yes | 33 | 17 | 100 | 16 | 94.1 | |
*significant at p < 0.05
CHWs who were married were more likely to have three or more years of experience than those who were single (Table 8)