Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health: qualitative evidence synthesis.

Lay health workers (LHWs) perform functions related to healthcare delivery, receive some level of training, but have no formal professional or paraprofessional certificate or tertiary education degree. They provide care for a range of issues, including maternal and child health. For LHW programmes to be effective, we need a better understanding of the factors that influence their success and sustainability. This review addresses these issues through a synthesis of qualitative evidence and was carried out alongside the Cochrane review of the effectiveness of LHWs for maternal and child health. The overall aim of the review is to explore factors affecting the implementation of LHW programmes for maternal and child health. We searched MEDLINE, OvidSP (searched 21 December 2011); MEDLINE Ovid In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, OvidSP (searched 21 December 2011); CINAHL, EBSCO (searched 21 December 2011); British Nursing Index and Archive, OvidSP (searched 13 May 2011). We searched reference lists of included studies, contacted experts in the field, and included studies that were carried out alongside the trials from the LHW effectiveness review. Studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis and that focused on the experiences and attitudes of stakeholders regarding LHW programmes for maternal or child health in a primary or community healthcare setting. We identified barriers and facilitators to LHW programme implementation using the framework thematic synthesis approach. Two review authors independently assessed study quality using a standard tool. We assessed the certainty of the review findings using the CerQual approach, an approach that we developed alongside this and related qualitative syntheses. We integrated our findings with the outcome measures included in the review of LHW programme effectiveness in a logic model. Finally, we identified hypotheses for subgroup analyses in future updates of the review of effectiveness. We included 53 studies primarily describing the experiences of LHWs, programme recipients, and other health workers. LHWs in high income countries mainly offered promotion, counselling and support. In low and middle income countries, LHWs offered similar services but sometimes also distributed supplements, contraceptives and other products, and diagnosed and treated children with common childhood diseases. Some LHWs were trained to manage uncomplicated labour and to refer women with pregnancy or labour complications.Many of the findings were based on studies from multiple settings, but with some methodological limitations. These findings were assessed as being of moderate certainty. Some findings were based on one or two studies and had some methodological limitations. These were assessed have low certainty.Barriers and facilitators were mainly tied to programme acceptability, appropriateness and credibility; and health system constraints. Programme recipients were generally positive to the programmes, appreciating the LHWs' skills and the similarities they saw between themselves and the LHWs. However, some recipients were concerned about confidentiality when receiving home visits. Others saw LHW services as not relevant or not sufficient, particularly when LHWs only offered promotional services. LHWs and recipients emphasised the importance of trust, respect, kindness and empathy. However, LHWs sometimes found it difficult to manage emotional relationships and boundaries with recipients. Some LHWs feared blame if care was not successful. Others felt demotivated when their services were not appreciated. Support from health systems and community leaders could give LHWs credibility, at least if the health systems and community leaders had authority and respect. Active support from family members was also important.Health professionals often appreciated the LHWs' contributions in reducing their workload and for their communication skills and commitment. However, some health professionals thought that LHWs added to their workload and feared a loss of authority.LHWs were motivated by factors including altruism, social recognition, knowledge gain and career development. Some unsalaried LHWs wanted regular payment, while others were concerned that payment might threaten their social status or lead recipients to question their motives. Some salaried LHWs were dissatisfied with their pay levels. Others were frustrated when payment differed across regions or institutions. Some LHWs stated that they had few opportunities to voice complaints. LHWs described insufficient, poor quality, irrelevant and inflexible training programmes, calling for more training in counselling and communication and in topics outside their current role, including common health problems and domestic problems. LHWs and supervisors complained about supervisors' lack of skills, time and transportation. Some LHWs appreciated the opportunity to share experiences with fellow LHWs.In some studies, LHWs were traditional birth attendants who had received additional training. Some health professionals were concerned that these LHWs were over-confident about their ability to manage danger signs. LHWs and recipients pointed to other problems, including women's reluctance to be referred after bad experiences with health professionals, fear of caesarean sections, lack of transport, and cost. Some LHWs were reluctant to refer women on because of poor co-operation with health professionals.We organised these findings and the outcome measures included in the review of LHW programme effectiveness in a logic model. Here we proposed six chains of events where specific programme components lead to specific intermediate or long-term outcomes, and where specific moderators positively or negatively affect this process. We suggest how future updates of the LHW effectiveness review could explore whether the presence of these components influences programme success. Rather than being seen as a lesser trained health worker, LHWs may represent a different and sometimes preferred type of health worker. The close relationship between LHWs and recipients is a programme strength. However, programme planners must consider how to achieve the benefits of closeness while minimizing the potential drawbacks. Other important facilitators may include the development of services that recipients perceive as relevant; regular and visible support from the health system and the community; and appropriate training, supervision and incentives.

Glenton C ，Colvin CJ ，Carlsen B ，Swartz A ，Lewin S ，Noyes J ，Rashidian A ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases.

Lay health workers (LHWs) are widely used to provide care for a broad range of health issues. Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of LHW interventions. To assess the effects of LHW interventions in primary and community health care on maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases. For the current version of this review we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (including citations uploaded from the EPOC and the CCRG registers) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1 Online) (searched 18 February 2009); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to February Week 1 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid (February 13 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2009 Week 05) (searched 18 February 2009); AMED, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 19 February 2009); British Nursing Index and Archive, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); CINAHL, Ebsco 1981 to present (searched 07 February 2010); POPLINE (searched 25 February 2009); WHOLIS (searched 16 April 2009); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (1975 to present) (searched 10 August 2006 and 10 February 2010). We also searched the reference lists of all included papers and relevant reviews, and contacted study authors and researchers in the field for additional papers. Randomised controlled trials of any intervention delivered by LHWs (paid or voluntary) in primary or community health care and intended to improve maternal or child health or the management of infectious diseases. A 'lay health worker' was defined as any health worker carrying out functions related to healthcare delivery, trained in some way in the context of the intervention, and having no formal professional or paraprofessional certificate or tertiary education degree. There were no restrictions on care recipients. Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed risk of bias. Studies that compared broadly similar types of interventions were grouped together. Where feasible, the study results were combined and an overall estimate of effect obtained. Eighty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. These showed considerable diversity in the targeted health issue and the aims, content, and outcomes of interventions. The majority were conducted in high income countries (n = 55) but many of these focused on low income and minority populations. The diversity of included studies limited meta-analysis to outcomes for four study groups. These analyses found evidence of moderate quality of the effectiveness of LHWs in promoting immunisation childhood uptake (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.37; P = 0.0004); promoting initiation of breastfeeding (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61; P < 0.00001), any breastfeeding (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.39; P = 0.0004), and exclusive breastfeeding (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.74 to 4.44; P <0.0001); and improving pulmonary TB cure rates (RR 1.22 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.31) P <0.0001), when compared to usual care. There was moderate quality evidence that LHW support had little or no effect on TB preventive treatment completion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; P = 0.99). There was also low quality evidence that LHWs may reduce child morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and child (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03; P = 0.07) and neonatal (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; P = 0.07) mortality, and increase the likelihood of seeking care for childhood illness (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.05; P = 0.20). For other health issues, the evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions regarding effectiveness, or to enable the identification of specific LHW training or intervention strategies likely to be most effective. LHWs provide promising benefits in promoting immunisation uptake and breastfeeding, improving TB treatment outcomes, and reducing child morbidity and mortality when compared to usual care. For other health issues, evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the effects of LHWs.

Lewin S ，Munabi-Babigumira S ，Glenton C ，Daniels K ，Bosch-Capblanch X ，van Wyk BE ，Odgaard-Jensen J ，Johansen M ，Aja GN ，Zwarenstein M ，Scheel IB ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Factors that influence the provision of intrapartum and postnatal care by skilled birth attendants in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

In many low- and middle-income countries women are encouraged to give birth in clinics and hospitals so that they can receive care from skilled birth attendants. A skilled birth attendant (SBA) is a health worker such as a midwife, doctor, or nurse who is trained to manage normal pregnancy and childbirth. (S)he is also trained to identify, manage, and refer any health problems that arise for mother and baby. The skills, attitudes and behaviour of SBAs, and the extent to which they work in an enabling working environment, impact on the quality of care provided. If any of these factors are missing, mothers and babies are likely to receive suboptimal care. To explore the views, experiences, and behaviours of skilled birth attendants and those who support them; to identify factors that influence the delivery of intrapartum and postnatal care in low- and middle-income countries; and to explore the extent to which these factors were reflected in intervention studies. Our search strategies specified key and free text terms related to the perinatal period, and the health provider, and included methodological filters for qualitative evidence syntheses and for low- and middle-income countries. We searched MEDLINE, OvidSP (searched 21 November 2016), Embase, OvidSP (searched 28 November 2016), PsycINFO, OvidSP (searched 30 November 2016), POPLINE, K4Health (searched 30 November 2016), CINAHL, EBSCOhost (searched 30 November 2016), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (searched 15 August 2013), Web of Science (searched 1 December 2016), World Health Organization Reproductive Health Library (searched 16 August 2013), and World Health Organization Global Health Library for WHO databases (searched 1 December 2016). We included qualitative studies that focused on the views, experiences, and behaviours of SBAs and those who work with them as part of the team. We included studies from all levels of health care in low- and middle-income countries. One review author extracted data and assessed study quality, and another review author checked the data. We synthesised data using the best fit framework synthesis approach and assessed confidence in the evidence using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. We used a matrix approach to explore whether the factors identified by health workers in our synthesis as important for providing maternity care were reflected in the interventions evaluated in the studies in a related intervention review. We included 31 studies that explored the views and experiences of different types of SBAs, including doctors, midwives, nurses, auxiliary nurses and their managers. The included studies took place in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.Our synthesis pointed to a number of factors affecting SBAs' provision of quality care. The following factors were based on evidence assessed as of moderate to high confidence. Skilled birth attendants reported that they were not always given sufficient training during their education or after they had begun clinical work. Also, inadequate staffing of facilities could increase the workloads of skilled birth attendants, make it difficult to provide supervision and result in mothers being offered poorer care. In addition, SBAs did not always believe that their salaries and benefits reflected their tasks and responsibilities and the personal risks they undertook. Together with poor living and working conditions, these issues were seen to increase stress and to negatively affect family life. Some SBAs also felt that managers lacked capacity and skills, and felt unsupported when their workplace concerns were not addressed.Possible causes of staff shortages in facilities included problems with hiring and assigning health workers to facilities where they were needed; lack of funding; poor management and bureaucratic systems; and low salaries. Skilled birth attendants and their managers suggested factors that could help recruit, keep, and motivate health workers, and improve the quality of care; these included good-quality housing, allowances for extra work, paid vacations, continuing education, appropriate assessments of their work, and rewards.Skilled birth attendants' ability to provide quality care was also limited by a lack of equipment, supplies, and drugs; blood and the infrastructure to manage blood transfusions; electricity and water supplies; and adequate space and amenities on maternity wards. These factors were seen to reduce SBAs' morale, increase their workload and infection risk, and make them less efficient in their work. A lack of transport sometimes made it difficult for SBAs to refer women on to higher levels of care. In addition, women's negative perceptions of the health system could make them reluctant to accept referral.We identified some other factors that also may have affected the quality of care, which were based on findings assessed as of low or very low confidence. Poor teamwork and lack of trust and collaboration between health workers appeared to negatively influence care. In contrast, good collaboration and teamwork appeared to increase skilled birth attendants' motivation, their decision-making abilities, and the quality of care. Skilled birth attendants' workloads and staff shortages influenced their interactions with mothers. In addition, poor communication undermined trust between skilled birth attendants and mothers. Many factors influence the care that SBAs are able to provide to mothers during childbirth. These include access to training and supervision; staff numbers and workloads; salaries and living conditions; and access to well-equipped, well-organised healthcare facilities with water, electricity, and transport. Other factors that may play a role include the existence of teamwork and of trust, collaboration, and communication between health workers and with mothers. Skilled birth attendants reported many problems tied to all of these factors.

Munabi-Babigumira S ，Glenton C ，Lewin S ，Fretheim A ，Nabudere H ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Mobile health (mHealth), refers to healthcare practices supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablets. Within primary care, health workers often use mobile devices to register clients, track their health, and make decisions about care, as well as to communicate with clients and other health workers. An understanding of how health workers relate to, and experience mHealth, can help in its implementation. To synthesise qualitative research evidence on health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services, and to develop hypotheses about why some technologies are more effective than others. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index in January 2018. We searched Global Health in December 2015. We screened the reference lists of included studies and key references and searched seven sources for grey literature (16 February to 5 March 2018). We re-ran the search strategies in February 2020. We screened these records and any studies that we identified as potentially relevant are awaiting classification. We included studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods. We included studies of mHealth programmes that were part of primary healthcare services. These services could be implemented in public or private primary healthcare facilities, community and workplace, or the homes of clients. We included all categories of health workers, as well as those persons who supported the delivery and management of the mHealth programmes. We excluded participants identified as technical staff who developed and maintained the mHealth technology, without otherwise being involved in the programme delivery. We included studies conducted in any country. We assessed abstracts, titles and full-text papers according to the inclusion criteria. We found 53 studies that met the inclusion criteria and sampled 43 of these for our analysis. For the 43 sampled studies, we extracted information, such as country, health worker category, and the mHealth technology. We used a thematic analysis process. We used GRADE-CERQual to assess our confidence in the findings. Most of the 43 included sample studies were from low- or middle-income countries. In many of the studies, the mobile devices had decision support software loaded onto them, which showed the steps the health workers had to follow when they provided health care. Other uses included in-person and/or text message communication, and recording clients' health information. Almost half of the studies looked at health workers' use of mobile devices for mother, child, and newborn health. We have moderate or high confidence in the following findings. mHealth changed how health workers worked with each other: health workers appreciated being more connected to colleagues, and thought that this improved co-ordination and quality of care. However, some described problems when senior colleagues did not respond or responded in anger. Some preferred face-to-face connection with colleagues. Some believed that mHealth improved their reporting, while others compared it to "big brother watching". mHealth changed how health workers delivered care: health workers appreciated how mHealth let them take on new tasks, work flexibly, and reach clients in difficult-to-reach areas. They appreciated mHealth when it improved feedback, speed and workflow, but not when it was slow or time consuming. Some health workers found decision support software useful; others thought it threatened their clinical skills. Most health workers saw mHealth as better than paper, but some preferred paper. Some health workers saw mHealth as creating more work. mHealth led to new forms of engagement and relationships with clients and communities: health workers felt that communicating with clients by mobile phone improved care and their relationships with clients, but felt that some clients needed face-to-face contact. Health workers were aware of the importance of protecting confidential client information when using mobile devices. Some health workers did not mind being contacted by clients outside working hours, while others wanted boundaries. Health workers described how some community members trusted health workers that used mHealth while others were sceptical. Health workers pointed to problems when clients needed to own their own phones. Health workers' use and perceptions of mHealth could be influenced by factors tied to costs, the health worker, the technology, the health system and society, poor network access, and poor access to electricity: some health workers did not mind covering extra costs. Others complained that phone credit was not delivered on time. Health workers who were accustomed to using mobile phones were sometimes more positive towards mHealth. Others with less experience, were sometimes embarrassed about making mistakes in front of clients or worried about job security. Health workers wanted training, technical support, user-friendly devices, and systems that were integrated into existing electronic health systems. The main challenges health workers experienced were poor network connections, access to electricity, and the cost of recharging phones. Other problems included damaged phones. Factors outside the health system also influenced how health workers experienced mHealth, including language, gender, and poverty issues. Health workers felt that their commitment to clients helped them cope with these challenges. Our findings propose a nuanced view about mHealth programmes. The complexities of healthcare delivery and human interactions defy simplistic conclusions on how health workers will perceive and experience their use of mHealth. Perceptions reflect the interplay between the technology, contexts, and human attributes. Detailed descriptions of the programme, implementation processes and contexts, alongside effectiveness studies, will help to unravel this interplay to formulate hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of mHealth.

Odendaal WA ，Anstey Watkins J ，Leon N ，Goudge J ，Griffiths F ，Tomlinson M ，Daniels K ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Having nurses take on tasks that are typically conducted by doctors (doctor-nurse substitution, a form of 'task-shifting') may help to address doctor shortages and reduce doctors' workload and human resource costs. A Cochrane Review of effectiveness studies suggested that nurse-led care probably leads to similar healthcare outcomes as care delivered by doctors. This finding highlights the need to explore the factors that affect the implementation of strategies to substitute doctors with nurses in primary care. In our qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focused on studies of nurses taking on tasks that are typically conducted by doctors working in primary care, including substituting doctors with nurses or expanding nurses' roles. (1) To identify factors influencing implementation of interventions to substitute doctors with nurses in primary care. (2) To explore how our synthesis findings related to, and helped to explain, the findings of the Cochrane intervention review of the effectiveness of substituting doctors with nurses. (3) To identify hypotheses for subgroup analyses for future updates of the Cochrane intervention review. We searched CINAHL and PubMed, contacted experts in the field, scanned the reference lists of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searches for key articles in the Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index databases, and 'related article' searches in PubMed. We constructed a maximum variation sample (exploring variables such as country level of development, aspects of care covered and the types of participants) from studies that had collected and analysed qualitative data related to the factors influencing implementation of doctor-nurse substitution and the expansion of nurses' tasks in community or primary care worldwide. We included perspectives of doctors, nurses, patients and their families/carers, policymakers, programme managers, other health workers and any others directly involved in or affected by the substitution. We excluded studies that collected data using qualitative methods but did not analyse the data qualitatively. We identified factors influencing implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies using a framework thematic synthesis approach. Two review authors independently assessed the methodological strengths and limitations of included studies using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. We assessed confidence in the evidence for the QES findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We integrated our findings with the evidence from the effectiveness review of doctor-nurse substitution using a matrix model. Finally, we identified hypotheses for subgroup analyses for updates of the review of effectiveness. We included 66 studies (69 papers), 11 from low- or middle-income countries and 55 from high-income countries. These studies found several factors that appeared to influence the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies. The following factors were based on findings that we assessed as moderate or high confidence.Patients in many studies knew little about nurses' roles and the difference between nurse-led and doctor-led care. They also had mixed views about the type of tasks that nurses should deliver. They preferred doctors when the tasks were more 'medical' but accepted nurses for preventive care and follow-ups. Doctors in most studies also preferred that nurses performed only 'non-medical' tasks. Nurses were comfortable with, and believed they were competent to deliver a wide range of tasks, but particularly emphasised tasks that were more health promotive/preventive in nature.Patients in most studies thought that nurses were more easily accessible than doctors. Doctors and nurses also saw nurse-doctor substitution and collaboration as a way of increasing people's access to care, and improving the quality and continuity of care.Nurses thought that close doctor-nurse relationships and doctor's trust in and acceptance of nurses was important for shaping their roles. But nurses working alone sometimes found it difficult to communicate with doctors.Nurses felt they had gained new skills when taking on new tasks. But nurses wanted more and better training. They thought this would increase their skills, job satisfaction and motivation, and would make them more independent.Nurses taking on doctors' tasks saw this as an opportunity to develop personally, to gain more respect and to improve the quality of care they could offer to patients. Better working conditions and financial incentives also motivated nurses to take on new tasks. Doctors valued collaborating with nurses when this reduced their own workload.Doctors and nurses pointed to the importance of having access to resources, such as enough staff, equipment and supplies; good referral systems; experienced leaders; clear roles; and adequate training and supervision. But they often had problems with these issues. They also pointed to the huge number of documents they needed to complete when tasks were moved from doctors to nurses. Patients, doctors and nurses may accept the use of nurses to deliver services that are usually delivered by doctors. But this is likely to depend on the type of services. Nurses taking on extra tasks want respect and collaboration from doctors; as well as proper resources; good referral systems; experienced leaders; clear roles; and adequate incentives, training and supervision. However, these needs are not always met.

Karimi-Shahanjarini A ，Shakibazadeh E ，Rashidian A ，Hajimiri K ，Glenton C ，Noyes J ，Lewin S ，Laurant M ，Colvin CJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》