A qualitative analysis of community health worker perspectives on the implementation of the preconception and pregnancy phases of the Bukhali randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community health workers (CHWs) play an important role in health systems in low- and middle-income countries, including South Africa. Bukhali is a CHW-delivered intervention as part of a randomised controlled trial, to improve the health trajectories of young women in Soweto, South Africa. This study aimed to qualitatively explore factors influencing implementation of the preconception and pregnancy phases of Bukhali, from the perspective of the CHWs (Health Helpers, HHs) delivering the intervention. As part of the Bukhali trial process evaluation, three focus group discussions were conducted with the 13 HHs employed by the trial. A thematic approach was used to analyse the data, drawing on elements of a reflexive thematic and codebook approach. The following six themes were developed, representing factors impacting implementation of the HH roles: interaction with the existing public healthcare sector; participant perceptions of health; health literacy and language barriers; participants' socioeconomic constraints; family, partner, and community views of trial components; and the HH-participant relationship. HHs reported uses of several trial-based tools to overcome implementation challenges, increasing their ability to implement their roles as planned. The relationship of trust between the HH and participants seemed to function as one important mechanism for impact. The findings supported a number of adaptations to the implementation of Bukhali, such as intensified trial-based follow-up of referrals that do not receive management at clinics, continued HH training and community engagement parallel to trial implementation, with an increased emphasis on health-related stigma and education. HH perspectives on intervention implementation highlighted adaptations across three broad strategic areas: navigating and bridging healthcare systems, adaptability to individual participant needs, and navigating stigma around disease. These findings provide recommendations for the next phases of Bukhali, for other CHW-delivered preconception and pregnancy trials, and for the strengthening of CHW roles in clinical settings with similar implementation challenges. Trial registration: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry; PACTR201903750173871, Registered March 27, 2019.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".