ArticleAfrican health sciences2022
An evaluation of a peer supervision pilot project among community health workers in rural Uganda.
Article in African health sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the types, workload, and supervision mechanism of community health workers: lessons learned for Indonesia.BMC primary care · 2024Pooled it
- The evolution of supportive supervision in low- and middle-income countries.BMC global and public health · 2026Review
- Transition and change: opportunities and challenges of CHW programme reform for community health systems and vertical disease programmes in Liberia.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Editorial.African health sciences · 2022Article
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
Background: Living Goods operates a Community Health Worker (CHW) program in 19 districts of Uganda, where CHWs are supervised by full time Community Health Supervisors. This model is effective, but expensive. Evidence indicates that peer supervision can be a substitute and cheaper model for CHW supervision. We describe our experience and outcomes while implementing peer supervision among CHWs in Mayuge district. Objectives: 1. To compare health services delivery outcomes between the two supervision models. 2. To compare costs of the two supervision models.. Methods: Internal organizational records from January to December 2019 were reviewed. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with participating CHWs were also conducted. Qualitative analysis was performed using thematic content analysis. Quantitative data was summarized to generate averages, percentages and graphs. Findings: CHWs under the peer supervision performed better than those under standard supervision against all key performance indicators. The total cost to maintain the peer supervision model for 1 year was USD $176 per CHW versus USD $273 among CHWs under the standard supervision model. Peer supervision thus resulted in overall cost savings of 36%. There was lower attrition among CHWs under peer supervision compared to standard supervision (10% versus 17%). Conclusions: Peer supervision is a feasible and more affordable model of supervising CHWs.
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.