ArticleAfrican journal of primary health care & family medicine2017
The relationship between primary healthcare providers and their external supervisors in Rwanda.
Article in African journal of primary health care & family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rwandan primary healthcare providers' perception of their capability in the diagnostic practice.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2020Article
- Development and validation of the ExPRESS instrument for primary health care providers' evaluation of external supervision.Global health action · 2018Article
- Reflections on family medicine and primary healthcare in sub-Saharan Africa.BMJ global health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExternal supervision of Rwandan primary healthcare facilities unfolds as an interaction between supervisors and healthcare providers. Their relationship has not been thoroughly studied in Rwanda, and rarely in Africa.
aimTo explore perceived characteristics and effects of the relationship between providers in public primary healthcare facilities and their external supervisors in Rwanda.
settingWe conducted three focus group discussions with primary healthcare providers (n = 16), three with external supervisors (n = 15) and one mixed (n = 5).
methodsFocus groups were facilitated under low-moderator involvement. Findings were extracted thematically and discussed with participating and non-participating providers and supervisors.
resultsWhile external supervision is intended as a source of motivation and professional development in addition to its managerial purpose, it appeared linked to excessive evaluation anxiety among Rwandan primary healthcare providers. Supervisors related this mainly to inescapable evaluations within performance-based financing, whereas providers additionally related it to communication problems.
conclusionExternal supervision appeared driven by systematic performance evaluations, which may prompt a strongly asymmetric supervisory power relation and challenge intentions to explore providers' experienced work problems. There is a risk that this may harm provider motivation, calling for careful attention to factors that influence the supervisory relationship. It is a dilemma that providers most in need of supervision to improve performance may be most unlikely to benefit from it. This study reveals a need for provider-oriented supportive supervision including constructive attention on providers who have performance difficulties, effective relationship building and communication, objective and diligent evaluation and two-way feedback channels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.