Do community health workers perceive mechanisms associated with the success of community case management of malaria? A qualitative study from Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of community health workers to administer prompt treatments is gaining popularity in most sub-Saharan African countries. Their performance is a key challenge because it varies considerably, depending on the context, while being closely associated with the effectiveness of case management strategies. What determines community health workers' performance is still under debate. Based on a realist perspective, a systematic review recently hypothesized that several mechanisms are associated with good performance and successful community interventions. In order to empirically investigate this hypothesis and confront it with the reality, we conducted a study in Burkina Faso, where in 2010 health authorities have implemented a national program introducing community case management of malaria. The objective was to assess the presence of the mechanisms in community health workers, and explore the influence of contextual factors. In 2012, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 community health workers from a study area established in two similar health districts (Kaya and Zorgho). Results suggest that they perceive most of the mechanisms, except the sense of being valued by the health system and accountability to village members. Analysis shows that drug stock-outs and past experiences of community health workers simultaneously influence the presence of several mechanisms. The lack of integration between governmental and non-governmental interventions and the overall socio-economic deprivation, were also identified as influencing the mechanisms' presence. By focusing on community health workers' agency, this study puts the influence of the context back at the core of the performance debate and raises the question of their ability to perform well in scaled-up anti-malaria programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".