Community case management to accelerate access to healthcare in Mali: a realist process evaluation nested within a cluster randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Proactive Community Case Management (ProCCM) trial in Mali reinforced the health system across both arms with user fee removal, professional community health workers (CHWs) and upgraded primary health centres (PHCs)-and randomized village-clusters to receive proactive home visits by CHWs (intervention) or fixed site-based services by passive CHWs (control). Across both arms, sick children's 24-hour treatment and pregnant women's four or more antenatal visits doubled, and under-5 mortality halved, over 3 years compared with baseline. In the intervention arm, proactive CHW home visits had modest effects on children's curative and women's antenatal care utilization, but no effect on under-5 mortality, compared with the control arm. We aimed to explain these results by examining implementation, mechanisms and context in both arms We conducted a process evaluation with a mixed method convergent design that included 79 in-depth interviews with providers and participants over two time-points, surveys with 195 providers and secondary analyses of clinical data. We embedded realist approaches in novel ways to test, refine and consolidate theories about how ProCCM worked, generating three context-intervention-actor-mechanism-outcome nodes that unfolded in a cascade. First, removing user fees and deploying professional CHWs in every cluster enabled participants to seek health sector care promptly and created a context of facilitated access. Second, health systems support to all CHWs and PHCs enabled equitable, respectful, quality healthcare, which motivated increased, rapid utilization. Third, proactive CHW home visits facilitated CHWs and participants to deliver and seek care, and build relationships, trust and expectations, but these mechanisms were also activated in both arms. Addressing multiple structural barriers to care, user fee removal, professional CHWs and upgraded clinics interacted with providers' and patients' agency to achieve rapid care and child survival in both arms. Proactive home visits expedited or compounded mechanisms that were activated and changed the context across arms.
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 | 0.041 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".