ReviewCureus2025
A Landscape Analysis of Supportive Supervisory Mechanisms in Maternal and Child Health Programs in India.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the drivers of effective supportive supervision: a realist evaluation of community health worker programs in Madhya Pradesh, India.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Supportive supervision of community health workers (CHWs) is considered a promising intervention for optimizing efficiency and health systems outcomes. However, little is known about how supportive supervision is conceptualized and implemented across maternal and child health (MCH) programs in India. We examined the scope of supportive supervision in selected MCH programs. We analyzed 29 programmatic documents and implementation guidelines from seven programs, and identified and extracted data on several themes, such as conceptualization, operationalization, monitoring and evaluation, and quality assurance of supportive supervision according to a pre-determined domain-based template. We found notable differences in the scope and quality of supportive supervision offered under different programs. Many programs did not include supportive supervision as a supervisory modality. Programs which included supportive supervision did not define all the parameters of operationalization - responsible workforce, frequency of visits, procedure, training, logistic support, supervision formats/checklists, scope for and frequency of monitoring and evaluation, and quality assurance of supervisory visits. Even when some parameters were defined, there was considerable heterogeneity in implementation across programs. Such inconsistencies may adversely affect the quality and efficiency of supportive supervision, thereby minimizing its potential. Policymakers should prioritize the redesign of supportive supervision strategies to ensure greater clarity and consistency across key domains, thereby optimizing community health worker performance and strengthening public health program outcomes.
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.