Upload
core-group
View
384
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
A Promising Approach to Care
Groups
MABAYI CHILD SURVIVAL PROJECT CIBITOKE
PROVINCE, BURUNDI
Overview• Objective & Key Research
Questions
• What are the two models
• What are the main difference between the models
• OR Study design
• Discussion of Preliminary Results
Objective
To test the effectiveness and sustainability of an Integrated Care Group Model to improve both knowledge
and practice of key child health and nutrition behaviors as compared to the Traditional Care Group Model
Key Research Questions
Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same improvement in the knowledge of key child health and nutrition behaviors among caregivers of children 0-23 months as the Traditional Care Group Model?
Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same improvement in the practice of key child health and nutrition behaviors among caregivers of children 0-23 months as the Traditional Care Group Model?
Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same level of Care Group functionality as the Traditional Care Group Model?
Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same level of Care Group sustainability as the Traditional Care Group Model?
Traditional Model
Integrated Model
Main Difference Between Models
Traditional Model Integrated Model
Supervision• Animators (Supervisors)-paid,
NGO staff: supervise Promoters
• Health Promoters-paid, NGO staff: motivate and supervise Care Group Volunteers which includes CHWs
• MOH Staff: support the CHWs• Animators (paid NGO staff):
provide oversight, supervision and follow-up at all levels
• Each Community Health Worker (CHW): motivates and supervises 2 Care Groups
TrainingCare Group Volunteers and CHWs trained by Health Promoters
CHWs responsible for training Care Group volunteers and facilitating Care Groups
CHWs are trained by MOH staff
Integrated model
Traditional model
Janvier Niandwi- Community Health Worker
Joseline Akimana, Care Group Volunteer
OR Study DesignTraditional Care
Group ModelIntegrated Care Group Model
Comparisons
Collines of comparable population
Support& Supervision
Frequency of Care Group Training
13 Collines5,344 HH51 Care Groups
1 Animator (Supervisor)
6 Promoters (1 per 9 CG)
Twice per month
Trained by Promoter
16 Collines5,134 HH59 Care Groups
1 Animator/TPS (MOH Staff)
Twice per month
CHWs trained by MOH
Knowledge & practices of key child health & nutrition behaviors among caregivers of children 0-23 months.
Functionality
Functionality
CHW roles with CG Participants Trainers (1 or 2 per CG)
Sustainability
Testimony from the field
13 out of 14 Titulaires interviewed commented on the strong working relationship with CHWs that has developed as a direct result of the MCSP
CHWs and CGVs commented on how easily information is spread throughout their communities as a result of the Care Group network of volunteers
Health center staff stated that information between the health center team and the communities now passes quickly and directly to those concerned
Preliminary Results
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Indicator 4
Indicator 5
Summary of Results
Both models achieving high levels of efficiency In general traditional group performing more
efficiently Not unexpected due to presence of Promoters Greatest difference in percentage of households
receiving at least one visit per month Possible trade off between efficiency and
potential sustainability
Issues/Challenges/Discussion Points
Husbands Local
administration Problems with
CHWs Pressure for
financial motivation
Stayed tuned….
Anticipating an endline survey will be conducted in February 2013