Community health worker motivation to perform systematic household contact tuberculosis investigation in a high burden metropolitan district in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background South Africa faces a chronic shortage of professional health workers. Accordingly, community health workers (CHWs) are being employed to mitigate the ongoing health workforce deficiencies. As increased access to quality service delivery hinges upon their motivation, this study explored CHWs’ motivation to deliver systematic household contact tuberculosis (TB) investigation (SHCI). Methods In 2017, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among CHWs in the Mangaung Metropolitan District, Free State Province. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on a 30-item scale to determine the dimensions underlying CHW motivation. Items with factor loadings of 0.4 and above were retained. Descriptive and inferential analyses were used to determine CHW motivation levels. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to investigate the determinants of CHW motivation. Results Out of 235 participants, 89.2% were female. Participants’ median age was 39 (inter-quartile range: 33–45) years. CHW motivation was defined by 16 items across three dimensions — intrinsic job satisfaction, burnout and team commitment, together explaining 56.04% of the total variance. The derived scale showed satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.81), with a mean motivation score of 52.26 (standard deviation [sd]: 5.86) out of 64. Statistically significant differences were observed between formal CHWs — those with at least phase 1 standardised accredited training, and informal CHWs — those without such accredited training regarding team commitment scores (17.82 [sd: 2.48] vs. 17.07 [sd: 2.82]; t (233) = 2.157; p = 0.013). CHW age (β = 0.118, p = 0.029), location (β = 1.737, p = 0.041), length of service (β = − 0.495, p < 0.001), attendance of TB SHCI training (β = 1.809, p = 0.036), and TB SHCI competence (β = 0.706, p < 0.001), contributed statistically significantly to CHW motivation. Conclusion CHW motivation to perform TB SHCI was both intrinsic and extrinsic. The high overall mean score implies that the CHWs were well-motivated to perform TB SHCI. To ensure sustained improved access to quality TB SHCI service provision, programme managers in the Free State and similar settings could potentially use the tool derived from this study to monitor and inform CHW motivation interventions. Interventions should pay close attention to the CHWs’ formalisation, competence and training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".