Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27439012›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Assessing the Impact of Community Engagement Interventions on Health Worker Motivation and Experiences with Clients in Primary Health Facilities in Ghana: A Randomized Cluster Trial.

Robert Kaba Alhassan, Edward Nketiah-Amponsah, Nicole Spieker, Daniel Kojo Arhinful, Tobias F Rinke de Wit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Robert Kaba AlhassanAmsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Edward Nketiah-AmponsahDepartment of Economics, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana.
Nicole SpiekerPharmAccess Foundation, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Daniel Kojo ArhinfulDepartment of Epidemiology, Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana.
Tobias F Rinke de WitAmsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
University of Ghana · GHAmsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development · NLPharmAccess Group · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth worker density per 1000 population in Ghana is one of the lowest in the world estimated to be 2.3, below the global average of 9.3. Low health worker motivation induced by poor working conditions partly explain this challenge. Albeit the wage bill for public sector health workers is about 90% of domestic government expenditure on health in countries such as Ghana, staff motivation and performance output remain a challenge, suggesting the need to complement financial incentives with non-financial incentives through a community-based approach. In this study, a systematic community engagement (SCE) intervention was implemented to engage community groups in healthcare quality assessment to promote mutual collaboration between clients and healthcare providers, and enhance health worker motivation levels. SCE involves structured use of existing community groups and associations to assess healthcare quality in health facilities. Identified quality gaps are discussed with healthcare providers, improvements made and rewards given to best performing facilities for closing quality care gaps. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of SCE interventions on health worker motivation and experiences with clients.

methodsThe study is a cluster randomized trial involving health workers in private (n = 38) and public (n = 26) primary healthcare facilities in two administrative regions in Ghana. Out of 324 clinical and non-clinical staff randomly interviewed at baseline, 234 (72%) were successfully followed at end-line and interviewed on workplace motivation factors and personal experiences with clients. Propensity score matching and difference-in-difference estimations were used to estimate treatment effect of the interventions on staff motivation.

resultsIntrinsic (non-financial) work incentives including cordiality with clients and perceived career prospects appeared to be prime sources of motivation for health staff interviewed in intervention health facilities while financial incentives were ranked lowest. Intervention health facilities that were assessed by female community groups (Coef. = 0.2720, p = 0.0118) and informal groups with organized leadership structures like Artisans (Coef. = 0.2268, p = 0.0368) associated positively with higher intrinsic motivation levels of staff.

conclusionCommunity-based approach to health worker motivation is a potential complementary strategy that needs policy deliberation to explore its prospects. Albeit financial incentives remain critical sources of staff motivation, innovative non-financial approaches like SCE should complement the latter.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCommunity Health WorkersAdultFemaleGhanaHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareSalaries and Fringe Benefits

Identifiers

PMID27439012
PMCPMC4954663
OpenAlexW2477632050

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.