Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30342523›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

The predictive validity of the Living Goods selection tools for community health workers in Kenya: cohort study.

Celia A Taylor, Richard J Lilford, Emily Wroe, Frances Griffiths, Ruth Ngechu

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Celia A TaylorDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. celia.taylor@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7526-0793
Richard J LilfordDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Emily WroePartners In Health, Neno, Malawi.
Frances GriffithsDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Ruth NgechuLiving Goods, PO Box 30261-00100, Nairobi, Kenya.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R000999/1Medical Research Council (GB) MR/N000999/1NIHR CLAHRC-WM N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnsuring that selection processes for Community Health Workers (CHWs) are effective is important due to the scale and scope of modern CHW programmes. However they are relatively understudied. While community involvement in selection should never be eliminated entirely, there are other complementary methods that could be used to help identify those most likely to be high-performing CHWs. This study evaluated the predictive validity of three written tests and two individual sections of a one-to-one interview used for selection into CHW posts in eight areas of Kenya.

methodsA cohort study of CHWs working for Living Goods in eight local areas of Kenya was undertaken. Data on the selection scores, post-training assessment scores and subsequent on-the-job performance (number of household and pregnancy registrations, number of child assessments, proportion of on-time follow-ups and value of goods sold) were obtained for 547 CHWs. Kendall's tau-b correlations between each selection score and performance outcome were calculated.

resultsNone of the correlations between selection scores and outcomes reached the 0.3 threshold of an "adequate" predictor of performance. Correlations were higher for the written components of the selection process compared to the interview components, with some small negative correlations found for the latter.

conclusionsIf the measures of performance included in this study are considered critical, then further work to develop the CHW selection tools is required. This could include modifying the content of both tools or increasing the length of the written tests to make them more reliable, for if a test is not reliable then it cannot be valid. Other important outcomes not included in this study are retention in post and quality of care. Other CHW programme providers should consider evaluating their own selection tools in partnership with research teams.

Indexed as

AdultAgedClinical CompetenceCohort StudiesCommunity Health WorkersFemaleHumansKenyaMaleMiddle AgedPersonnel SelectionPredictive Value of TestsYoung AdultAssessmentCommunity health workersPerformancePredictive validitySelection

Identifiers

PMID30342523
PMCPMC6195994

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.