16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Community health workers at the dawn of a new era: 7. Recent advances in supervision

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Supervision is essential for optimizing performance and motivation of community health workers (CHWs). This paper, the seventh in our series, “Community health workers at the dawn of a new era”, supplements the existing evidence on CHW supervision in low- and middle-income countries by reviewing what supervision approaches are employed in specific contexts, identifying potential facilitators of CHW supervision including mobile health (mHealth) interventions, and noting challenges of supervision including the relationship between supervision and other CHW programme elements.

          Methods

          For this exploratory research study on CHW supervision, we reviewed the supervisory interventions described in a compendium of 29 case studies of large-scale CHW programmes, performed an electronic search of multiple databases to identify articles related to CHW supervision published between 15 June 2017 and 1 December 2020, and from those articles followed additional references that appeared to be relevant for our results.

          Results

          We reviewed 55 case studies, academic articles, and grey literature resources as part of this exploratory research. A variety of supervision approaches have been adapted over time, which we grouped into five categories: external supervision, community supervision, group supervision, peer supervision, and dedicated supervision. These approaches are frequently used in combination. Digital (mHealth) technologies are being explored as potential facilitators of CHW supervision in both small- and large-scale programmes; however, evidence of their effectiveness remains limited to date. Inadequate support for supervisors is a major challenge, particularly given the numerous and varied roles they are expected to fulfil, spanning administrative, clinical, and supportive activities. Supervisors can help CHWs acquire other critical elements needed from the health system for them to perform more effectively: incentives to foster motivation, clarity of roles and tasks, adequate tools and supplies, appropriate knowledge and skills, and a safe work environment.

          Conclusion

          In the absence of a universal “best approach” for CHW supervision, our recommendation is that countries and programmes prioritize homegrown evolution over time to suit the local context. In some cases, this may involve scaling up novel approaches that have proven effective at small scale or testing approaches that have worked in other countries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Community health workers in low-, middle-, and high-income countries: an overview of their history, recent evolution, and current effectiveness.

          Over the past half-century, community health workers (CHWs) have been a growing force for extending health care and improving the health of populations. Following their introduction in the 1970s, many large-scale CHW programs declined during the 1980s, but CHW programs throughout the world more recently have seen marked growth. Research and evaluations conducted predominantly during the past two decades offer compelling evidence that CHWs are critical for helping health systems achieve their potential, regardless of a country's level of development. In low-income countries, CHWs can make major improvements in health priority areas, including reducing childhood undernutrition, improving maternal and child health, expanding access to family-planning services, and contributing to the control of HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis infections. In many middle-income countries, most notably Brazil, CHWs are key members of the health team and essential for the provision of primary health care and health promotion. In the United States, evidence indicates that CHWs can contribute to reducing the disease burden by participating in the management of hypertension, in the reduction of cardiovascular risk factors, in diabetes control, in the management of HIV infection, and in cancer screening, particularly with hard-to-reach subpopulations. This review highlights the history of CHW programs around the world and their growing importance in achieving health for all.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            What do we know about community-based health worker programs? A systematic review of existing reviews on community health workers

            Objective To synthesize current understanding of how community-based health worker (CHW) programs can best be designed and operated in health systems. Methods We searched 11 databases for review articles published between 1 January 2005 and 15 June 2017. Review articles on CHWs, defined as non-professional paid or volunteer health workers based in communities, with less than 2 years of training, were included. We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews according to AMSTAR criteria, and we report our findings based on PRISMA standards. Findings We identified 122 reviews (75 systematic reviews, of which 34 are meta-analyses, and 47 non-systematic reviews). Eighty-three of the included reviews were from low- and middle-income countries, 29 were from high-income countries, and 10 were global. CHW programs included in these reviews are diverse in interventions provided, selection and training of CHWs, supervision, remuneration, and integration into the health system. Features that enable positive CHW program outcomes include community embeddedness (whereby community members have a sense of ownership of the program and positive relationships with the CHW), supportive supervision, continuous education, and adequate logistical support and supplies. Effective integration of CHW programs into health systems can bolster program sustainability and credibility, clarify CHW roles, and foster collaboration between CHWs and higher-level health system actors. We found gaps in the review evidence, including on the rights and needs of CHWs, on effective approaches to training and supervision, on CHWs as community change agents, and on the influence of health system decentralization, social accountability, and governance. Conclusion Evidence concerning CHW program effectiveness can help policymakers identify a range of options to consider. However, this evidence needs to be contextualized and adapted in different contexts to inform policy and practice. Advancing the evidence base with context-specific elements will be vital to helping these programs achieve their full potential. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12960-018-0304-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases.

              Lay health workers (LHWs) are widely used to provide care for a broad range of health issues. Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of LHW interventions. To assess the effects of LHW interventions in primary and community health care on maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases. For the current version of this review we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (including citations uploaded from the EPOC and the CCRG registers) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1 Online) (searched 18 February 2009); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to February Week 1 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid (February 13 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2009 Week 05) (searched 18 February 2009); AMED, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 19 February 2009); British Nursing Index and Archive, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); CINAHL, Ebsco 1981 to present (searched 07 February 2010); POPLINE (searched 25 February 2009); WHOLIS (searched 16 April 2009); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (1975 to present) (searched 10 August 2006 and 10 February 2010). We also searched the reference lists of all included papers and relevant reviews, and contacted study authors and researchers in the field for additional papers. Randomised controlled trials of any intervention delivered by LHWs (paid or voluntary) in primary or community health care and intended to improve maternal or child health or the management of infectious diseases. A 'lay health worker' was defined as any health worker carrying out functions related to healthcare delivery, trained in some way in the context of the intervention, and having no formal professional or paraprofessional certificate or tertiary education degree. There were no restrictions on care recipients. Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed risk of bias. Studies that compared broadly similar types of interventions were grouped together. Where feasible, the study results were combined and an overall estimate of effect obtained. Eighty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. These showed considerable diversity in the targeted health issue and the aims, content, and outcomes of interventions. The majority were conducted in high income countries (n = 55) but many of these focused on low income and minority populations. The diversity of included studies limited meta-analysis to outcomes for four study groups. These analyses found evidence of moderate quality of the effectiveness of LHWs in promoting immunisation childhood uptake (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.37; P = 0.0004); promoting initiation of breastfeeding (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61; P < 0.00001), any breastfeeding (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.39; P = 0.0004), and exclusive breastfeeding (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.74 to 4.44; P <0.0001); and improving pulmonary TB cure rates (RR 1.22 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.31) P <0.0001), when compared to usual care. There was moderate quality evidence that LHW support had little or no effect on TB preventive treatment completion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; P = 0.99). There was also low quality evidence that LHWs may reduce child morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and child (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03; P = 0.07) and neonatal (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; P = 0.07) mortality, and increase the likelihood of seeking care for childhood illness (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.05; P = 0.20). For other health issues, the evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions regarding effectiveness, or to enable the identification of specific LHW training or intervention strategies likely to be most effective. LHWs provide promising benefits in promoting immunisation uptake and breastfeeding, improving TB treatment outcomes, and reducing child morbidity and mortality when compared to usual care. For other health issues, evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the effects of LHWs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                hperry2@jhu.edu
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                12 October 2021
                12 October 2021
                2021
                : 19
                Issue : Suppl 3 Issue sponsor : Publication costs were covered by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Supplement Editors were not involved in the peer review for any article that they co-authored. The articles have undergone the journal's standard peer review process for supplements. The Supplement Editors declare that they have no other competing interests.
                : 114
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Community Health Impact Coalition, New York, NY USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.11194.3c, ISNI 0000 0004 0620 0548, Department of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, , Makerere University, ; Kampala, Uganda
                [3 ]Crigler Consulting, LLC, Hillsborough, NC USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.21107.35, ISNI 0000 0001 2171 9311, Department of International Health, Health Systems Program, Bloomberg School of Public Health, , Johns Hopkins University, ; Baltimore, MD USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4435-1286
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0561-0492
                Article
                754
                10.1186/s12961-021-00754-6
                8507092
                34641909
                8c8a89cb-9d58-4dcf-8d66-9fffaa4eb913
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 16 June 2021
                : 17 June 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000865, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation;
                Award ID: ID OPP 1197181
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Health & Social care
                community health,community health workers,supervision,supportive supervision,supervision approaches,performance management

                Comments

                Comment on this article