Skip to main content

Table 2 Key characteristics of the community health worker models associated with notification impact

From: What makes community health worker models for tuberculosis active case finding work? A cross-sectional study of TB REACH projects to identify success factors for increasing case notifications

 

LI (n = 15)

MI (n = 16)

HI (n = 19)

Total

p-value╪

Implementation activities

 Tuberculosis (TB) and other

6 (40%)

5 (31%)

8 (42%)

19 (38%)

0.790

 TB only

9 (60%)

11 (69%)

11 (58%)

31 (62%)

 % time spent on TB activities

77.3

85

77.9

80

0.649*

 Community outreach1

13/15 (87%)

13/15 (87%)

16/19 (84%)

42/49 (86%)

1.00

 Verbal screening1

13/15 (87%)

12/15 (80%)

17/19 (89%)

42/49 (86%)

0.730

 HIV testing1

1/15 (7%)

1/15 (7%)

2/19 (11%)

4/49 (8%)

1.00

 Sputum collection and transportation

12 (80%)

11 (69%)

13 (68%)

36 (72%)

0.712

 Linkage to treatment

11 (73%)

9 (56%)

15 (79%)

35 (70%)

0.326

 Treatment counseling

5 (33%)

7 (44%)

13 (68%)

25 (50%)

0.106

Recruitment and selection

 Had prior experience2

11/15 (73%)

10/14 (71%)

13/19 (68%)

34/48 (71%)

0.951

 Years of education3

12 (10–14)

12 (10–12)

10 (9–12)

12 (10–12)

0.378*

 Provided written contracts

13 (87%)

15 (94%)

15 (79%)

43 (86%)

0.462

 From TB REACH

7 (54%)

13 (87%)

8 (53%)

27 (65%)

0.095

 From non-governmental organization

4 (31%)

2 (13%)

4 (27%)

10 (23%)

0.513

 From government

2 (15%)

1 (7%)

3 (20%)

6 (14%)

0.655

 Provided differentiated contracts5

10/12 (83%)

14/15 (93%)

9/15 (60%)

33/42 (79%)

0.075

Pre-service training¶

 Training method

  Expert

14 (93%)

15 (94%)

18 (95%)

47 (94%)

1.000

  Peer-to-peer

10 (67%)

8 (50%)

9 (47%)

27 (54%)

0.495

  Hands-on

14 (93%)

13 (81%)

17 (90%)

44 (88%)

0.652

  E-learning

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (11%)

2 (4%)

0.323

 Training setting

  Classroom-based

14 (93%)

15 (94%)

19 (100%)

48 (96%)

0.519

  Community-based

8 (53%)

9 (56%)

15 (79%)

32 (64%)

0.223

  Average hours of pre-service trainings4

12 (5–24)

12 (8–18)

16 (8–30)

16 (8–24)

0.366*

Refresher training¶

 Formal refresher trainings2

9/13 (69%)

11/16 (73%)

11/19 (58%)

31/48 (65%)

0.646

 Formal training method (n = 31)

 Expert

8 (89%)

11 (100%)

10 (91%)

29 (94%)

0.740

 Peer-to-peer

7 (78%)

10 (91%)

4 (36%)

21 (36%)

0.019

 Hands-on

6 (67%)

10 (91%)

8 (73%)

24 (77%)

0.437

 E-learning

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (18%)

2 (7%)

0.314

Formal training setting

 Classroom-based

8 (89%)

10 (91%)

7 (64%)

25 (81%)

0.205

 Community-based

4 (44%)

6 (55%)

7 (64%)

17 (55%)

0.692

 Frequency of refresher trainings4

3 (1–4)

2 (2–4)

2 (2–4)

2 (2–4)

0.978*

 Average hours of refresher trainings3

4 (3–8)

5 (3–8)

7 (3–8)

5.5 (3–8)

0.725*

Supervision

 Issues addressed by direct supervisor4

13/15 (87%)

13/13 (100%)

16/19 (84%)

42/47 (89%)

0.420

 Issues addressed by upper management4

3/15 (20%)

0/13 (0%)

4/19 (22%)

7/47 (15%)

0.197

Female supervisor (%)2

58.8

53.5

29.5

45.6

0.007

 Average # community health workers (CHWs) per supervisor3

13 (7–26)

7 (6–10)

15 (5–60)

9 (6–25)

0.247*

 Average # of supervisor reviews per quarter2

9 (3–12)

6 (3–12)

6 (3–12)

6 (3–12)

0.775*

 Average # of supervisor direct feedback per quarter2

9 (3–12)

3 (1–12)

6 (4–12)

6 (3–12)

0.293*

Sustainability and integration

 Promoted to a higher role

5/14 (36%)

8/13 (62%)

8/19 (42%)

21/46 (46%)

0.426

CHWs working on the project keep their jobs at the close of the project2

 All kept their jobs after project

7/14 (50%)

1/15 (7%)

5/19 (26%)

13/48 (27%)

0.064

 A subset kept their jobs after project

4/14 (29%)

11/15 (73%)

11/19 (58%)

26/48 (54%)

 None kept their jobs after project

4/14 (29%)

2/15 (13%)

3/19 (16%)

9/48 (19%)

 Continued with the same responsibilities (N = 39)

8/11 (73%)

3/12 (25%)

13/16 (81%)

24/39 (62%)

0.007

  1. Data are %, mean or median. % are calculated based on the total number of projects with available data. Percentages within each category are based on the total projects within each category. N sizes are listed for variables with missing values
  2. 1: 1 (2%) respondent missing information on questions asked
  3. 2: 2 (4%) respondents missing information on questions asked
  4. 3: 6 (12%) respondents missing information on questions asked
  5. 4: 3 (6%) respondents missing information on questions asked
  6. 5: 8 (16%) respondents missing information on questions asked
  7. ╪: Fisher’s exact test and Chi-square tests: comparing proportions that is conditional on frequencies; ANOVA test: comparing means
  8. *: Median (IQR) and Kruskal–Wallis test
  9. ¶: As indicated by WHO CHW training guidelines, expert, peer-to-peer, and hands-on training indicates face-to-face interaction as opposed to distance learning (e-learning). Classroom-based training emphasizes theoretical knowledge; community-based training emphasizes practical application