Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36242016›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Health services supervision in a protracted crisis: a qualitative study into supportive supervision practices in South Sudan.

George William Lutwama, Lodi Joseph Sartison, James Onyango Yugi, Taban Nickson Nehemiah, Zechreya Micheal Gwang, Barbara Akita Kibos, Eelco Jacobs

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

George William LutwamaKIT Health, Royal Tropical Institute, Mauritskade 63, Amsterdam, 1090 HA, The Netherlands. wglutwama@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3643-4153
Lodi Joseph SartisonMontrose International, Africa Office, 31b Bukoto Crescent, Naguru, Kampala, P.O. Box 11161, Uganda.
James Onyango YugiMontrose International, Africa Office, 31b Bukoto Crescent, Naguru, Kampala, P.O. Box 11161, Uganda.
Taban Nickson NehemiahMontrose International, Africa Office, 31b Bukoto Crescent, Naguru, Kampala, P.O. Box 11161, Uganda.
Zechreya Micheal GwangBoma Health Initiative Secretariat, Ministry of Health, Juba, South Sudan.
Barbara Akita KibosCrown Agents Limited, South Sudan Office, Plot 541, Block 3K, 2nd Class Tong Piny, Juba, South Sudan.
Eelco JacobsKIT Health, Royal Tropical Institute, Mauritskade 63, Amsterdam, 1090 HA, The Netherlands.
Montrose Center · USRoyal Tropical Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe health system in South Sudan faces extreme domestic resource constraints, low capacity, and protracted humanitarian crises. Supportive supervision is believed to improve the quality of health care and service delivery by compensating for flaws in health workforce management. This study aimed to explore the current supervision practices in South Sudan and identify areas for quality improvement.

methodsThe study employed qualitative approaches to collect and analyse data from six purposefully selected counties. Data were collected from 194 participants using semi-structured interviews (43 health managers) and focus group discussions (151 health workers). Thematic content analysis was used to yield an in-depth understanding of the supervision practices in the health sector.

resultsThe study found that integrated supportive supervision and monitoring visits were the main approaches used for health services supervision in South Sudan. Supportive supervision focused more on health system administration and less on clinical matters. Although fragmented, supportive supervision was carried out quarterly, while monitoring visits were either conducted monthly or ad hoc. Prioritization for supportive supervision was mainly data driven. Paper-based checklists were the most commonly used supervision tools. Many supervisors had no formal training on supportive supervision and only learned on the job. The health workers received on-site verbal feedback and, most times, on-the-job training sessions through coaching and mentorship. Action plans developed during supervision were inadequately followed up due to insufficient funding. Insecurity, poor road networks, lack of competent health managers, poor coordination, and lack of adequate means of transport were some of the challenges experienced during supervision. The presumed outcomes of supportive supervision were improvements in human resource management, drug management, health data reporting, teamwork, and staff respect for one another.

conclusionSupportive supervision remains a daunting task in the South Sudan health sector due to a combination of external and health system factors. Our study findings suggest that strengthening the processes and providing inputs for supervision should be prioritized if quality improvement is to be attained. This necessitates stronger stewardship from the Ministry of Health, integration of different supervision practices, investment in the capacity of the health workforce, and health infrastructure development.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersHealth ServicesFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchSouth SudanConflictHealth managersHealth workersProtracted crisisQuality improvementSouth SudanSupportive supervision

Identifiers

PMID36242016
PMCPMC9568951
OpenAlexW4306249889

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.