| Literature DB >> 36188022 |
Tigest Tamrat1, Subhash Chandir2, Kelsey Alland3, Alisa Pedrana4, Mubarak Taighoon Shah5, Carolyn Footitt6, Jennifer Snyder7, Natschja Ratanaprayul8, Danya Arif Siddiqi2, Numera Nazneen9, Inraini Fitria Syah4, Roger Wong6, Peter Lubell-Doughtie6, Annisa Dwi Utami4, Khaerul Anwar10, Hasmot Ali11, Alain B Labrique3, Lale Say1, Anuraj H Shankar12, Garrett Livingston Mehl8.
Abstract
Objective: To describe a systematic process of transforming paper registers into a digital system optimized to enhance service provision and fulfil reporting requirements.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36188022 PMCID: PMC9511663 DOI: 10.2471/BLT.22.287816
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bull World Health Organ ISSN: 0042-9686 Impact factor: 13.831
Research phases and questions in the study of transitioning paper registers to digital systems, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, 2015–2018
| Phase | Aims | Research questions | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: Needs assessment | Understand health workers' responsibilities, workflows, routine data reporting needs, and intervention schedules and tasks for service delivery to establish the functional requirements for an optimized digital register system | What are the current workflows, data generation responsibilities and technology capacities of health workers in each study site? | Desk review; |
| Phase 2: Prototype development | Create a functional version (minimum viable product) of digital application that meets minimum requirements of capturing routinely collected data, addresses service delivery needs, and achieves usability across targeted cadres of health worker | What functions are required of the digital register for both the generic version and the local adaptations for each site and cadre of health worker? | Focus group discussions; |
| Phase 3: Feasibility assessment | Determine the factors necessary to support implementation of the digital system and uptake by health workers | What is the uptake by health workers of the developed digital register? | Pilot testing with continuous data monitoring; |
Study participants by cadre type and setting in three study sites in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, 2015–2018
| Participants | Health worker cadres by setting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gaibandha district, Bangladesh | Central Lombok district, Indonesia | Karachi (urban) and Shikarpur (rural) districts, Pakistan | |
| Primary health workers (5–7 of each cadre) | |||
| Supervisors of primary health workers (3–5 of each cadre) | |||
| District-level health managers for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health services (1 of each cadre) | Deputy director family planning; | District health office head; | Provincial head of expanded programmes on immunization; |
Notes: Upazila are the equivalent of subdistricts. Local terms for the health worker cadres are shown in italics.
Description of the paper registers reviewed and digital modules developed at three study sites in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, 2015–2018
| Stage | Gaibandha district, Bangladesh | Central Lombok district, Indonesia | Karachi and Shikarpur districts, Pakistan |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Register review | 22 paper registers reviewed | 20 paper registers reviewed: | 16 paper registers reviewed: |
| Family welfare assistants’ registers: couple roster; child roster (age 0–1 years); child roster (age 0–5 years); adolescent health service delivery roster; pregnant woman roster; household population roster; 2-monthly summary reporting forms for family welfare assistants | Antenatal care registers: new antenatal care; antenatal care visit; birth plan; delivery and postnatal care | Lady health workers’ registers: family register; monthly report by lady health workers; community chart; register for diagnosis; family planning register; lady health workers monthly programme register; health committee meeting report; women’s group meeting report; list of children less than 3 years of age; list of pregnant women | |
| No. of professionals interviewed or observeda | 15 health workers observed: | 23 health workers interviewed or observed: | 19 health workers interviewed or observed: |
|
| |||
| No. of modules | 2 digital prototypes | 3 digital prototypes | 2 digital prototypes |
| Details | A module for family welfare assistants to record community health worker activities related to household registration, pregnancy registration, antenatal care danger signs, referral and commodity distribution, and postnatal care; | A module for community-based midwives to record registration of mothers, antenatal care, postnatal care, care for children under 5 years of age, and family planning; | A module for lady health workers to register households including women and children for pregnancy registration, antenatal and postnatal care and family planning; |
|
| |||
| No of health workers trained on the module | 45 family welfare assistants; numbers were increased from the research protocol on request from the health ministry | 13 midwives | 6 vaccinators |
| No. of health workers using the module during pilot deployment | 44 family welfare assistants | 13 midwives | 8 health workers (3 lady health workers and 5 vaccinators) |
a Only health workers involved in service delivery were observed; supervisory staff were only interviewed.
Note: Local terms for the health worker cadres are shown in italics.
Outcomes of the feasibility assessment during pilot deployment of a new digital records application in three study sites in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, 2016–2017
| Indicator | Gaibandha district, Bangladesh | Central Lombok district, Indonesia | Karachi and Shikarpur districts, Pakistan |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| No. of registrations into the module | 1348 households registered by family welfare assistants; | 959 new pregnant women registered by midwives (mean per midwife: 73; range: 10–346); | 334 households (with 1762 household members) enrolled by lady health workers; |
|
| |||
| Mean number of forms submitted per health worker per week (range) | 48 forms (8–101) | 54 forms (26–234) | NA |
| No. (%) of health workers submitting forms consistently for at least 10 days | 27/44 (61) | 8/13 (62) | NA |
| No. (%) of health workers with form submissions below the average | 17/44 (39) | 5/13 (38) | NA |
| Mean number of sessions on use of modules per health worker (range) | NA | 193 (67–501) | NA |
| Time taken for household enrolment, minutes (range) | NA | NA | Mean: 2.5; median: 1.8 (0.8–13.3) |
NA: not applicable.
Fig. 1Changes in digital form submissions by nurse midwives in response to feedback and coaching, Central Lombok district, Indonesia, June 2015 to March 2016