Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26340390›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2015

The effect of mutual task sharing on the number of needed health workers at the Iranian Health Posts; Does task sharing increase efficiency?

Ali Fakhri, Aidin Aryankhesal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ali FakhriSocial Determinants of Health (SDH) Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran.
Aidin AryankhesalHealth Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNowadays task sharing is a way to optimize utilization of human resources for health. This study was designed to assess the effect of task sharing, mutually between midwives and Family Health Workforces (FHWs), on the number of needed staff across the Iranian Health Posts.

methodsThe workload and required number of midwives and FHWs in a Health Post were calculated and compared in two different scenarios of task division using a combined approach for estimating the number of required staff. In the first scenario, the midwives and FHWs provide their specialized services and in the second one, using mutual task sharing, a midwife provides all services traditionally delivered by FHWs and each FHW provides prenatal care in addition to the special tasks. Sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the effects of different hypotheses.

resultsBy applying mutual task sharing, the required number of staff for Health Posts was one midwife and two FHWs for a standard population of 12,500; one FHW less than that when no task sharing was applied. Sensitivity analysis illustrated that the number of needed staff is the same in both scenarios when different demographic, epidemiologic, cultural and organizational conditions were applied.

conclusionTask sharing can reduce the required number of health workers which increases efficiency and productivity at health facilities. However, apart from a need to consider quality, acceptability, and feasibility of care, increasing efficiency must be judged against the contextual circumstances.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareMaternal-Child Health ServicesWorkloadHealth PersonnelHealth Services AccessibilityHumansIranMidwiferyWorkforceHealth PostHuman Resource for HealthMidwifeTask SharingTask ShiftingWorkload Study

Identifiers

PMID26340390
PMCPMC4529040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.