Does health worker performance affect clients’ health behaviors? A multilevel analysis from Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suboptimal healthcare quality may be a barrier to achieving child health improvements, yet little is known about the relationship between provider compliance with evidence-based practices and client behavior change. We assess provider compliance in the context of infant and young child feeding (IYCF) counseling, its relationship with client IYCF behaviors in Bangladesh, and explore its potential determinants. METHODS: We use data from a 2017 evaluation of an IYCF program that includes a health worker survey (n = 74), caregiver survey (n = 232), and direct service observation checklists of counseling sessions (n = 232 observations of 74 health workers). We assess the relationship between provider compliance with recommended IYCF counseling topics and behaviors (standardized to a 100-point scale) and three reported IYCF behaviors among clients using multi-level models with random effects at the health worker and sub-district (sampling) levels. We also evaluate whether health worker self-efficacy, satisfaction, and technical knowledge are associated with provider compliance. RESULTS: Health worker compliance was significantly associated with reported exclusive breastfeeding for children under 6 months of age (adjusted odds ratio per 1 percentage point increase in counseling compliance score = 1.06, 95% CI 1.01, 1.12) and marginally associated with minimum dietary diversity (adjusted odds ratio per 1 percentage point increase in counseling compliance score = 1.05, 95% CI 1.00, 1.11). Counseling compliance was significantly and positively associated with both health worker self-efficacy and technical knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: We find evidence for an association between health worker compliance and client health behaviors; however, small effect sizes suggest that behavior change is multifactorial and affected by factors beyond care quality. Improvements to technical quality of care may contribute to desired health outcomes; but policies and programs seeking to change health behaviors through counseling may also wish to target upstream factors such as self-efficacy, alongside technical skill-building and knowledge, for maximum impact.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".