Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31747947›Full record

ReviewHuman resources for health2019

A conceptual framework for measuring community health workforce performance within primary health care systems.

Smisha Agarwal, Pooja Sripad, Caroline Johnson, Karen Kirk, Ben Bellows, Joseph Ana, Vince Blaser, Meghan Bruce Kumar, Kathleen Buchholz, Alain Casseus and 16 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human resources for health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Comparing global and community indicators of safety and peace.African journal of psychological assessment · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

26 authors.

Smisha AgarwalPopulation Council, Washington, DC, USA. smishaa@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7407-0066
Pooja SripadPopulation Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Caroline JohnsonPopulation Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Karen KirkPopulation Council, New York, NY, USA.
Ben BellowsPopulation Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Joseph AnaHealthcare Information For All (HIFA), Oxford, UK.
Vince BlaserIntraHealth International, Washington, DC, USA.
Meghan Bruce KumarDepartment of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Kathleen BuchholzLast Mile Health, New York, USA.
Alain CasseusZanmi Lasante, Croix-des-Bouquets, Haiti.
Nan ChenLast Mile Health, New York, USA.
Hannah Sarah Faich DiniUNICEF, New York, USA.
Rachel Hoy DeussomHRH2030 Program, Chemonics International, Washington, DC, USA.
David JacobsteinUSAID, Washington, DC, USA.
Richard KintuPathfinder International, Kampala, Uganda.
Nazo KureshyUSAID, Washington, DC, USA.
Lory MeoliUSAID, Washington, DC, USA.
Lilian OtisoDepartment of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Neil Pakenham-WalshHealthcare Information For All (HIFA), Oxford, UK.
Jérôme Pfaffmann ZambruniUNICEF, New York, USA.
Mallika RaghavanLast Mile Health, New York, USA.
Ryan SchwarzNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
John TownsendPopulation Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Brittney VarpilahLast Mile Health, New York, USA.
William WeissDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Charlotte E WarrenPopulation Council, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1174594
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the 40th anniversary of the Declaration of Alma-Ata, a global effort is underway to re-focus on strengthening primary health care systems, with emphasis on leveraging community health workers (CHWs) towards the goal of achieving universal health coverage for all. Institutionalizing effective, sustainable community health systems is currently limited by a lack of standard metrics for measuring CHW performance and the systems they work within. Developed through iterative consultations, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and in partnership with USAID and UNICEF, this paper details a framework, list of indicators, and measurement considerations for monitoring CHW performance in low- and middle-income countries.

methodsA review of peer-reviewed articles, reports, and global data collection tools was conducted to identify key measurement domains in monitoring CHW performance. Three consultations were successively convened with global stakeholders, community health implementers, advocates, measurement experts, and Ministry of Health representatives using a modified Delphi approach to build consensus on priority indicators. During this process, a structured, web-based survey was administered to identify the importance and value of specific measurement domains, sub-domains, and indicators determined through the literature reviews and initial stakeholder consultations. Indicators with more than 75% support from participants were further refined with expert qualitative input.

resultsTwenty-one sub-domains for measurement were identified including measurement of incentives for CHWs, supervision and performance appraisal, data use, data reporting, service delivery, quality of services, CHW absenteeism and attrition, community use of services, experience of services, referral/counter-referral, credibility/trust, and programmatic costs. Forty-six indicators were agreed upon to measure the sub-domains. In the absence of complete population enumeration and digitized health information systems, the quality of metrics to monitor CHW programs is limited.

conclusionsBetter data collection approaches at the community level are needed to strengthen management of CHW programs and community health systems. The proposed list of metrics balances exhaustive and pragmatic measurement of CHW performance within primary healthcare systems. Adoption of the proposed framework and associated indicators by CHW program implementors may improve programmatic effectiveness, strengthen their accountability to national community health systems, drive programmatic quality improvement, and plausibly improve the impact of these programs.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesCommunity Health WorkersHumansPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareCommunity health workerHealthcare quality indicatorsHealth information systemsHealth metricsPrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID31747947
PMCPMC6868857

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.