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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |