Cargando…

An evaluation of a peer supervision pilot project among community health workers in rural Uganda

BACKGROUND: Living Goods operates a Community Health Worker (CHW) program in 19 districts of Uganda, where CHWs are supervised by full time Community Health Supervisors. This model is effective, but expensive. Evidence indicates that peer supervision can be a substitute and cheaper model for CHW sup...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nakibaala, Grace, Watsemba, Agnes, Ssali, Brian, Namugera, Frank, Katushabe, Phionah, Carleen, Maggie, Christiansen, Molly, Chambert, Emilie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Makerere Medical School 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9652659/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36407367
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v22i2.74
_version_ 1784828521189736448
author Nakibaala, Grace
Watsemba, Agnes
Ssali, Brian
Namugera, Frank
Katushabe, Phionah
Carleen, Maggie
Christiansen, Molly
Chambert, Emilie
author_facet Nakibaala, Grace
Watsemba, Agnes
Ssali, Brian
Namugera, Frank
Katushabe, Phionah
Carleen, Maggie
Christiansen, Molly
Chambert, Emilie
author_sort Nakibaala, Grace
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Living Goods operates a Community Health Worker (CHW) program in 19 districts of Uganda, where CHWs are supervised by full time Community Health Supervisors. This model is effective, but expensive. Evidence indicates that peer supervision can be a substitute and cheaper model for CHW supervision. We describe our experience and outcomes while implementing peer supervision among CHWs in Mayuge district OBJECTIVES: 1. To compare health services delivery outcomes between the two supervision models. 2. To compare costs of the two supervision models.. METHODS: Internal organizational records from January to December 2019 were reviewed. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with participating CHWs were also conducted. Qualitative analysis was performed using thematic content analysis. Quantitative data was summarized to generate averages, percentages and graphs. FINDINGS: CHWs under the peer supervision performed better than those under standard supervision against all key performance indicators. The total cost to maintain the peer supervision model for 1 year was USD $176 per CHW versus USD $273 among CHWs under the standard supervision model. Peer supervision thus resulted in overall cost savings of 36%. There was lower attrition among CHWs under peer supervision compared to standard supervision (10% versus 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Peer supervision is a feasible and more affordable model of supervising CHWs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9652659
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Makerere Medical School
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96526592022-11-18 An evaluation of a peer supervision pilot project among community health workers in rural Uganda Nakibaala, Grace Watsemba, Agnes Ssali, Brian Namugera, Frank Katushabe, Phionah Carleen, Maggie Christiansen, Molly Chambert, Emilie Afr Health Sci Articles BACKGROUND: Living Goods operates a Community Health Worker (CHW) program in 19 districts of Uganda, where CHWs are supervised by full time Community Health Supervisors. This model is effective, but expensive. Evidence indicates that peer supervision can be a substitute and cheaper model for CHW supervision. We describe our experience and outcomes while implementing peer supervision among CHWs in Mayuge district OBJECTIVES: 1. To compare health services delivery outcomes between the two supervision models. 2. To compare costs of the two supervision models.. METHODS: Internal organizational records from January to December 2019 were reviewed. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with participating CHWs were also conducted. Qualitative analysis was performed using thematic content analysis. Quantitative data was summarized to generate averages, percentages and graphs. FINDINGS: CHWs under the peer supervision performed better than those under standard supervision against all key performance indicators. The total cost to maintain the peer supervision model for 1 year was USD $176 per CHW versus USD $273 among CHWs under the standard supervision model. Peer supervision thus resulted in overall cost savings of 36%. There was lower attrition among CHWs under peer supervision compared to standard supervision (10% versus 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Peer supervision is a feasible and more affordable model of supervising CHWs. Makerere Medical School 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9652659/ /pubmed/36407367 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v22i2.74 Text en © 2022 Nakibaala G et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee African Health Sciences. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Articles
Nakibaala, Grace
Watsemba, Agnes
Ssali, Brian
Namugera, Frank
Katushabe, Phionah
Carleen, Maggie
Christiansen, Molly
Chambert, Emilie
An evaluation of a peer supervision pilot project among community health workers in rural Uganda
title An evaluation of a peer supervision pilot project among community health workers in rural Uganda
title_full An evaluation of a peer supervision pilot project among community health workers in rural Uganda
title_fullStr An evaluation of a peer supervision pilot project among community health workers in rural Uganda
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of a peer supervision pilot project among community health workers in rural Uganda
title_short An evaluation of a peer supervision pilot project among community health workers in rural Uganda
title_sort evaluation of a peer supervision pilot project among community health workers in rural uganda
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9652659/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36407367
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v22i2.74
work_keys_str_mv AT nakibaalagrace anevaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT watsembaagnes anevaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT ssalibrian anevaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT namugerafrank anevaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT katushabephionah anevaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT carleenmaggie anevaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT christiansenmolly anevaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT chambertemilie anevaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT nakibaalagrace evaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT watsembaagnes evaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT ssalibrian evaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT namugerafrank evaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT katushabephionah evaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT carleenmaggie evaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT christiansenmolly evaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda
AT chambertemilie evaluationofapeersupervisionpilotprojectamongcommunityhealthworkersinruraluganda