Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26731097›Full record

ReviewPloS one2016

Impact of Contextual Factors on the Effect of Interventions to Improve Health Worker Performance in Sub-Saharan Africa: Review of Randomised Clinical Trials.

Claire Blacklock, Daniela C Gonçalves Bradley, Sharon Mickan, Merlin Willcox, Nia Roberts, Anna Bergström, David Mant

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. TheFrontiers in public health · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Claire BlacklockNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Daniela C Gonçalves BradleyNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sharon MickanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Merlin WillcoxNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Nia RobertsNuffield Department of Population Health and Bodleian Healthcare Library, Knowledge Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Anna BergströmInternational Maternal and Child Health, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
David MantNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAfrica bears 24% of the global burden of disease but has only 3% of the world's health workers. Substantial variation in health worker performance adds to the negative impact of this significant shortfall. We therefore sought to identify interventions implemented in sub-Saharan African aiming to improve health worker performance and the contextual factors likely to influence local effectiveness. METHODS AND

findingsA systematic search for randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health worker performance undertaken in sub-Saharan Africa identified 41 eligible trials. Data were extracted to define the interventions' components, calculate the absolute improvement in performance achieved, and document the likelihood of bias. Within-study variability in effect was extracted where reported. Statements about contextual factors likely to have modified effect were subjected to thematic analysis. Interventions to improve health worker performance can be very effective. Two of the three trials assessing mortality impact showed significant reductions in death rates (age<5 case fatality 5% versus 10%, p<0.01; maternal in-hospital mortality 6.8/1000 versus 10.3/1000; p<0.05). Eight of twelve trials focusing on prescribing had a statistically significant positive effect, achieving an absolute improvement varying from 9% to 48%. However, reported range of improvement between centres within trials varied substantially, in many cases exceeding the mean effect. Nine contextual themes were identified as modifiers of intervention effect across studies; most frequently cited were supply-line failures, inadequate supervision or management, and failure to follow-up training interventions with ongoing support, in addition to staff turnover.

conclusionsInterventions to improve performance of existing staff and service quality have the potential to improve patient care in underserved settings. But in order to implement interventions effectively, policy makers need to understand and address the contextual factors which can contribute to differences in local effect. Researchers therefore must recognise the importance of reporting how context may modify effect size.

Indexed as

Africa South of the SaharaEducation, ContinuingEmployee Performance AppraisalHealth PersonnelHumansQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality of Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStaff Development

Identifiers

PMID26731097
PMCPMC4701409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.