ArticleHuman resources for health2018
Comparing time and motion methods to study personnel time in the context of a family planning supply chain intervention in Senegal.
Article in Human resources for health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA family planning (FP) supply chain intervention was introduced in Senegal in 2012 to reduce contraceptive stock-outs. Labour is the highest cost in low- and middle-income country supply chains. In this paper, we (1) understand time use of personnel working in the FP supply chain at health facilities in Senegal, (2) estimate the validity of self-administered timesheets (STs) relative to continuous observations (COs), and (3) describe the cost of data collection for each method.
methodsWe collected time use data for seven stockroom managers in six facilities using both ST and CO. Activities were categorized as follows: stock management associated with FP, non-FP stock management, other productive activities, non-productive activities, and waiting time. Paired t tests were used to compare the mean differences between the two methods in all categories and in productive time alone.
resultsAmong all activities, the absolute and relative time spent on productive activities was higher when estimated by ST compared to CO. Conversely, waiting time was underestimated by STs. There was no difference in the relative time spent on non-productive activities. When comparing the distribution of the three productive activity categories, we found no evidence of a difference in relative time percentage estimates between CO and ST (FP stockroom management - 3.0%, 95% CI - 7.4 to 1.4%; non-FP stockroom management 3.4%, 95% CI - 2.8 to 9.6%; and other productive activities - 0.1%, 95% CI - 6.3 to 6.0%). Data collection costs for CO are 140% more than ST.
conclusionSTs were not a reliable method for measuring absolute labour time at health facilities in Senegal due to considerable underestimates of time waiting for clients. However, ST had acceptable reliability when examining distribution of productive time. Although CO provides more accurate absolute time estimates, the unit costs for data collection using this method are more than triple those for STs in Senegal.
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.