Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31492789›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Development of a tool for assessing quality of comprehensive care provided by community health workers in a community-based care programme in South Africa.

Frances Griffiths, Olukemi Babalola, Celia Brown, Julia de Kadt, Hlologelo Malatji, Margaret Thorogood, Yu-Hwei Tseng, Jane Goudge

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Frances GriffithsUniversity of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK f.e.griffiths@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4173-1438
Olukemi BabalolaCentre for Health Policy, University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Celia BrownUniversity of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7526-0793
Julia de KadtCentre for Health Policy, University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Hlologelo MalatjiCentre for Health Policy, University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Margaret ThorogoodUniversity of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK.
Yu-Hwei TsengCentre for Health Policy, University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Jane GoudgeCentre for Health Policy, University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa.
University of the Witwatersrand · ZAUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N015908/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop a tool for use by non-clinical fieldworkers for assessing the quality of care delivered by community health workers providing comprehensive care in households in low- and middle-income countries.

designWe determined the content of the tool using multiple sources of information, including interactions with district managers, national training manuals and an exploratory study that included observations of 70 community health workers undertaking 518 household visits collected as part of a wider study. We also reviewed relevant literature, selecting relevant domains and quality markers. To refine the tool and manual we worked with the fieldworkers who had undertaken the observations. We constructed two scores summarising key aspects of care: (1) delivering messages and actions during household visit, and (2) communicating with the household; we also collected contextual data. The fieldworkers used the tool with community health workers in a different area to test feasibility.

settingSouth Africa, where community health workers have been brought into the public health system to address the shortage of healthcare workers and limited access to healthcare. It was embedded in an intervention study to improve quality of community health worker supervision. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome was the completion of a tool and user manual.

resultsThe tool consists of four sections, completed at different stages during community health worker household visits: before setting out, at entry to a household, during the household visit and after leaving the household. Following tool refinement, we found no problems on field-testing the tool.

conclusionsWe have developed a tool for assessing quality of care delivered by community health workers at home visits, often an unobserved part of their role. The tool was developed for evaluating an intervention but could also be used to support training and management of community health workers.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersHouse CallsClinical CompetenceComprehensive Health CareHumansObservationQuality Assurance, Health CareSouth Africaassessmentcommunity carecommunity health workersprimary carequality of care

Identifiers

PMID31492789
PMCPMC6731907
OpenAlexW2971507625

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.