de Vries Daniel H, Pool Robert
Department of Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 17;12(1):e0170217. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170217. eCollection 2017.
Despite the availability of practical knowledge and effective interventions required to reduce priority health problems in low-income countries, poor and vulnerable populations are often not reached. One possible solution to this problem is the use of Community or Lay Health Workers (CLHWs). So far, however, the development of sustainability in CLHW programs has failed and high attrition rates continue to pose a challenge. We propose that the roles and interests which support community health work should emerge directly from the way in which health is organized at community level. This review explores the evidence available to assess if increased levels of integration of community health resources in CLHW programs indeed lead to higher program effectiveness and sustainability.
This review includes peer-reviewed articles which meet three eligibility criteria: 1) specific focus on CLHWs or equivalent; 2) randomized, quasi-randomized, before/after methodology or substantial descriptive assessment; and 3) description of a community or peer intervention health program located in a low- or middle-income country. Literature searches using various article databases led to 2930 hits, of which 359 articles were classified. Of these, 32 articles were chosen for extensive review, complemented by analysis of the results of 15 other review studies. Analysis was conducted using an excel based data extraction form. Because results showed that no quantitative data was published, a descriptive synthesis was conducted. The review protocol was not proactively registered. Findings show minimal inclusion of even basic community level indicators, such as the degree to which the program is a community initiative, community input in the program or training, the background and history of CLHW recruits, and the role of the community in motivation and retention. Results show that of the 32 studies, only one includes one statistical measure of community integration. As a result of this lack of data we are unable to derive an evidence-based conclusion to our propositions. Instead, our results indicate a larger problem, namely the complete absence of indicators measuring community relationships with the programs studied. Studies pay attention only to gender and peer roles, along with limited demographic information about the recruits. The historicity of the health worker and the community s/he belongs to is absent in most studies reviewed. None of the studies discuss or test for the possibility that motivation emanates from the community. Only a few studies situate attrition and retention as an issue enabled by the community. The results were limited by a focus on low-income countries and English, peer-reviewed published articles only.
Published, peer-reviewed studies evaluating the effectiveness and sustainability of CLHW interventions in health programs have not yet adequately tested for the potential of utilizing existing community health roles or social networks for the development of effective and sustainable (retentive) CLHW programs. Community relationships are generally seen as a "black box" represented by an interchangeable CLHW labor unit. This disconnect from community relationships and resources may have led to a systematic and chronic undervaluing of community agency in explanations of programmatic effectiveness and sustainability.
尽管在低收入国家有减少重点健康问题所需的实用知识和有效干预措施,但贫困和弱势群体往往无法从中受益。解决这一问题的一个可能办法是使用社区或非专业卫生工作者(CLHWs)。然而,到目前为止,CLHW项目的可持续发展进展不佳,高流失率仍然是一个挑战。我们认为,支持社区卫生工作的角色和利益应直接源于社区层面的卫生组织方式。本综述探讨现有证据,以评估CLHW项目中社区卫生资源整合水平的提高是否确实能带来更高的项目有效性和可持续性。
本综述纳入了符合三项纳入标准的同行评议文章:1)专门关注CLHWs或类似人员;2)随机、准随机、前后对照研究方法或实质性描述性评估;3)对低收入或中等收入国家的社区或同伴干预卫生项目的描述。使用各种文章数据库进行文献检索,共获得2930条结果,其中359篇文章被分类。其中,32篇文章被选作详细综述,并辅以对其他15项综述研究结果的分析。使用基于Excel的数据提取表进行分析。由于结果显示未发表定量数据,因此进行了描述性综合分析。本综述方案未预先注册。研究结果表明,即使是基本的社区层面指标,如项目作为社区倡议的程度、社区在项目或培训中的投入、CLHW招募人员的背景和历史,以及社区在激励和留用方面的作用,也很少被纳入。结果显示,在32项研究中,只有一项纳入了一项社区整合的统计指标。由于缺乏数据,我们无法就我们的命题得出基于证据的结论。相反,我们的结果表明了一个更大的问题,即完全缺乏衡量社区与所研究项目关系的指标。研究仅关注性别和同伴角色,以及关于招募人员的有限人口统计学信息。在大多数综述研究中,卫生工作者及其所属社区的历史情况均未涉及。没有一项研究讨论或测试动机是否源自社区的可能性。只有少数研究将流失和留用问题视为由社区促成的问题。结果受到仅关注低收入国家和英文同行评议发表文章的限制。
已发表的、经过同行评议的评估CLHW干预在卫生项目中的有效性和可持续性的研究,尚未充分测试利用现有社区卫生角色或社会网络来发展有效且可持续(留住人员)的CLHW项目的潜力。社区关系通常被视为一个由可互换的CLHW劳动力单位代表的“黑匣子”。这种与社区关系和资源的脱节,可能导致在解释项目有效性和可持续性时,系统性地长期低估社区机构的作用。