Financial motivation models for community health workers in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community health workers (CHWs) are key players in providing primary healthcare in low- and middle-income countries. However, their absence from the formal health system in many of these countries often presents a challenge to their remuneration. The objective of this scoping review is to document programs implemented at both small and large scales in low- and middle-income countries, the remuneration strategies they have established, and the effects of these strategies on the work of CHWs. In total, we included 50 articles in this review. We have identified four types of compensation: fixed compensation, performance-based compensation, compensation based on income-generating activities (IGAs), and combined compensation. We identified the strengths and weaknesses of each type of compensation. A common strength for most models was improvement in motivation and performance. A common weakness for most models was irregular payments. The results of this review highlight the need to consider the economic, social, and cultural settings of the countries or environments at hand, and to include CHWs in discussions regarding the selection of a compensation model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".