Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32598348›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Novel approaches to measuring knowledge among frontline health workers in India: Are phone surveys a reliable option?

Neha Shah, Diwakar Mohan, Smisha Agarwal, Kerry Scott, Sara Chamberlain, Aarushi Bhatnagar, Alain Labrique, Meenal Indurkar, Rajani Ved, Amnesty LeFevre and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

11 authors.

Neha ShahDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9450-604X
Diwakar MohanDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7532-366X
Smisha AgarwalDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7407-0066
Kerry ScottDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3597-9637
Sara ChamberlainBBC Media Action, New Delhi, Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0003-4785-6482
Aarushi BhatnagarOxford Policy Management, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Alain LabriqueDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Meenal IndurkarNational Health Systems Resource Center, National Institute of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi, Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1176-5821
Rajani VedNational Health Systems Resource Center, National Institute of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi, Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-9545-9265
Amnesty LeFevreDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8437-7240
Kilkari Impact Evaluation team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2017, India was home to nearly 20% of maternal and child deaths occurring globally. Accredited social health activists (ASHAs) act as the frontline for health services delivery in India, providing a range of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child health, and nutrition (RMNCH&N) services. Empirical evidence on ASHAs' knowledge is limited, yet is a critical determinant of the quality of health services provided. We assessed the determinants of RMNCH&N knowledge among ASHAs and examined the reliability of alternative modalities of survey delivery, including face-to-face and caller attended telephone interviews (phone surveys) in 4 districts of Madhya Pradesh, India.

methodsWe carried out face-to-face surveys among a random cross-sectional sample of ASHAs (n = 1,552), and administered a follow-up test-retest survey within 2 weeks of the initial survey to a subsample of ASHAs (n = 173). We interviewed a separate sub-sample of ASHAs 2 weeks of the face-to-face interview over the phone (n = 155). Analyses included bivariate analyses, multivariable linear regression, and prevalence and bias adjusted kappa analyses.

findingsThe average ASHA knowledge score was 64% and ranged across sub-domains from 71% for essential newborn care, 71% for WASH/ diarrhea, 64% for infant feeding, 61% for family planning, and 60% for maternal health. Leading determinants of knowledge included geographic location, age <30 years of age, education, experience as an ASHA, completion of seven or more client visits weekly, phone ownership and use as a communication tool for work, as well as the ability to navigate interactive voice response prompts (a measure of digital literacy). Efforts to develop a phone survey tool for measuring knowledge suggest that findings on inter-rater and inter-modal reliability were similar. Reliability was higher for shorter, widely known questions, including those about timing of exclusive breastfeeding or number of tetanus shots during pregnancy. Questions with lower reliability included those on sensitive topics such as family planning; questions with multiple response options; or which were difficult for the enumerator to convey.

conclusionsOverall results highlight important gaps in the knowledge of ASHAs. Findings on the reliability of phone surveys led to the development of a tool, which can be widely used for the routine, low cost measurement of ASHA RMNCH&N knowledge in India.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSurveys and QuestionnairesTelephoneAdultCommunity Health WorkersFemaleHumansIndiaMale

Identifiers

PMID32598348
PMCPMC7323989

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.