Achievements and challenges of implementation in a mature iCCM programme: Malawi case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malawi has a mature integrated community case management (iCCM) programme that is led by the Ministry of Health (MOH) but that still relies on donor support. From 2013 until 2017, under the Rapid Access Expansion (RAcE) programme, the World Health Organization supported the MOH to expand and strengthen iCCM services in four districts. This paper examines Malawi's iCCM programme performance and implementation strength in RAcE districts to further strengthen the broader programme. METHODS: Baseline and endline household surveys were conducted in iCCM-eligible areas of RAcE districts. Primary caregivers of recently-sick children under five were interviewed to assess changes in care-seeking and treatment over the project period. Health surveillance assistants (HSAs) were surveyed at endline to assess iCCM implementation strength. RESULTS: Care-seeking from HSAs and treatment of fever improved over the project period. At endline, however, less than half of sick children were brought to an HSA, many caregivers reported a preference for providers other than HSAs, and perceptions of HSAs as trusted providers of high-quality, convenient care had decreased. HSA supervision and mentorship were below MOH targets. Stockouts of malaria medicines were associated with decreased care-seeking from HSAs. Thirty percent of clusters had limited or no access to iCCM (no HSA or an HSA providing iCCM services less than 2 days per week); 50% had moderate access (an HSA providing iCCM services 2 to 4 days per week; and 20% had high access (a resident HSA providing iCCM services 5 or more days per week). Moderate access to iCCM was associated with increased care-seeking from HSAs, increased treatment by HSAs, and more positive perceptions of HSAs compared to areas with limited or no access. Areas with high access to iCCM did not show further improvements above areas with moderate access. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of well-equipped and supported HSAs is critical to the provision of iCCM services. Additional qualitative research is needed to examine challenges and to inform potential solutions. Malawi's mature iCCM programme has a strong foundation but can be improved to strengthen the continuity of care from communities to facilities and to ultimately improve child health outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".