Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Mar 19;24(1):355.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10686-w.

Mixed method evaluation of a learning from excellence programme for community health workers in Neno, Malawi

Maartje Kletter  1 , Bronwyn Harris  2 , Emilia Connolly  3 , Chifundo Namathanga  3 , Basimenye Nhlema  3 , Henry Makungwa  3 , Benson Chabwera  3 , Benson Phiri  3 , Celia Brown  2
Affiliations

Mixed method evaluation of a learning from excellence programme for community health workers in Neno, Malawi

Maartje Kletter et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Community Health Workers (CHWs) play an essential role in linking communities to facility-based healthcare. However, CHW programmes have often been hampered by low levels of staff motivation, and new tools aimed at improving staff motivation and work environment are needed. One such intervention is the "Learning from Excellence" (LfE) programme. We aimed to assess feasibility, outputs, and impact of a co-designed LfE programme on CHW motivation, in Neno District.

Methods: We conducted a convergent mixed-method evaluation of the LfE programme. Co-design of the programme and forms took place between October 2019 and January 2020. LfE forms submitted between September and November 2020 were analysed using descriptive statistics and memos summarising answers to the open-ended question. To investigate experiences with LfE we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, CHWs, and site supervisors, which were analysed thematically. A pre-post intervention questionnaire was developed to assess the impact of the co-designed LfE intervention on CHW motivation and perceived supervision. Outcomes were triangulated into a logic model.

Results: In total 555 LfE forms were submitted, with 34.4% of CHWs in Neno District submitting at least one LfE report. Four themes were identified in the interviews: LfE implementation processes, experience, consequences, and recommendations. A total of 50 CHWs participated in the questionnaire in January 2020 and 46 of them completed the questionnaire in December 2020. No statistically significant differences were identified between pre-and post-LfE measurements for both motivation (Site F: p = 0.86; Site G: p = 0.31) and perceived supervision (Site F: p = 0.95; Site G: p = 0.45). A logic model, explaining how the LfE programme could impact CHWs was developed.

Conclusions: Many CHWs participated in the LfE intervention between September 2020 and November 2020. LfE was welcomed by CHWs and stakeholders as it allowed them to appreciate excellent work in absence of other opportunities to do so. However, no statistically significant differences in CHW motivation and perceived supervision were identified. While the intervention was feasible in Neno District, we identified several barriers and facilitators for implementation. We developed a logic model to explain contextual factors, and mechanisms that could lead to LfE outcomes for CHWs in Neno District. The developed logic model can be used by those designing and implementing interventions like LfE for health workers.

Keywords: Community Health workers; Evaluation; Logic model; Mixed method; Positive psychology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Logic model of factors identified in the mixed method study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Full adapted logic model after mixed method study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Perry HB, Zulliger R, Rogers MM. Community health workers in low-, middle-, and high-income countries: an overview of their history, recent evolution, and current effectiveness. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:399–421. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182354. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Organization WH. What do we know about community health workers? A systematic review of existing reviews. World Health Organization; 2020.
    1. Hodgins S, Kok M, Musoke D, Lewin S, Crigler L, LeBan K, et al. Community health workers at the dawn of a new era: 1. Introduction: tensions confronting large-scale CHW programmes. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(Suppl 3):109. doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00752-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lehmann U, Twum-Danso NAY, Nyoni J. Towards universal health coverage: what are the system requirements for effective large-scale community health worker programmes? BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 9):e001046. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001046. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kok MC, Dieleman M, Taegtmeyer M, Broerse JE, Kane SS, Ormel H, et al. Which intervention design factors influence performance of community health workers in low- and middle-income countries? A systematic review. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(9):1207–27. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czu126. - DOI - PMC - PubMed