Community health worker motivation to perform systematic household contact tuberculosis investigation in a high burden metropolitan district in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundSouth Africa faces a chronic shortage of professional health workers. Accordingly, community health workers (CHWs) are being employed to mitigate the ongoing deficiencies. In addition to facilitating linkages between communities and primary health care (PHC) facilities, CHWs are entrusted with a range of crucial tuberculosis (TB), HIV/AIDS and maternal health services. As increased access to quality service delivery hinges upon their motivation, this study investigated CHWs’ motivation to deliver systematic household contact TB investigation (SHCI).MethodsIn 2017, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among CHWs enrolled in the ward-based PHC outreach teams in the Mangaung Metropolitan District. Descriptive, exploratory factor analysis and multiple linear regression analysis were conducted to establish the dimensions, levels and determinants of CHW motivation. Statistical significance was determined at p ≤ 0.05.ResultsOut of 235 participants, the majority were female (89.2%). Participants’ median age was 39 (inter-quartile range: 33-45) years. Job satisfaction, burnout and team commitment characterised CHW motivation or lack thereof, together explaining 56.04% of the total variance, with a mean score of 51.59 (standard deviation: 5.14) out of 64. The full scale showed satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach α: 0.734). The individual sub-scales also had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach α—job satisfaction: 0.83; burnout: 0.83; and team commitment: 0.73). CHW category (i.e. formal — with at least phase 1 of standardised training vs. informal — with non-standardised training) and TB SHCI training and knowledge significantly influenced CHW motivation. Formal CHWs scored twice higher (β = 2.020; p = 0.009) than informal CHWs on the motivation scale. Motivation scores increased by 0.841 (p = 0.007) times with every unit increase in CHW TB SHCI knowledge. Scores were more than twice lower (β = -2.289; p = 0.003) among CHWs who did not attend TB SHCI training than those who did.ConclusionThe high mean score implies that the CHWs were motivated to perform TB SHCI. The TB programme in the Free State should ensure sustained CHW motivation to effect improved access to quality TB SHCI service provision. To this end, the TB programme should pay close attention to the CHWs’ formalisation, TB knowledge 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".