ArticleBMC health services research2026
Evaluation of a training intervention for primary healthcare workers to improve management of diabetes and hypertension in Kisumu County, Kenya: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundStrengthening primary healthcare (PHC) worker’s clinical capacity remains critical for improving non-communicable disease (NCD) outcomes in low-resource settings. This study evaluated a targeted training for PHC workers in Kisumu County, Kenya, focusing on diabetes and hypertension management. The aim of the study was to evaluate a training intervention by assessing its relevance, acceptability, and feasibility, as well as its initial effects on both knowledge and clinical care practices in diabetes and hypertension management.
methodsA mixed-methods design was used, involving 24 purposively selected PHC workers from 10 PHC facilities. Quantitative data were collected at three time points: pre-training, post-training, and three months later using structured questionnaires and observation checklists to assess changes in NCD knowledge and clinical care practices. Qualitative data from focus group discussions explored perceptions of PHC workers, barriers, and facilitators to implementation. Statistical analyses included paired-t-tests, McNemar’s test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test while qualitative data were analyzed thematically using Dedoose software.
resultsThe training intervention received high acceptability ratings, with a mean score of 4.80 out of 5. NCD knowledge significantly improved post-training (mean score: 6.46 to 8.17, p = 0.0002), a 26% increase and was largely retained at the three-month follow-up. Clinical care practices also improved initially (mean score: 3.17 to 4.29, p = 0.0032), but declined at follow-up (mean score: 3.71, p = 0.0284), reflecting challenges in sustaining behavior change. Observational data and qualitative findings revealed systemic barriers such as inadequate resources and weak technical support that hindered consistent application of the learned practices.
conclusionsWhile the training intervention effectively improved PHC workers’ knowledge on DM and HTN management and short-term clinical practices, sustained improvements in care delivery require complementary systemic interventions. These include strengthening facility readiness, supply chains, and ongoing mentorship to support the translation of knowledge into routine clinical practice.
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.