mabayi child survival project-care groups_5.3.12
TRANSCRIPT
A Promising Approach to Care Groups
MABAYI CHILD SURVIVAL
PROJECT CIBITOKE
PROVINCE, BURUNDI
• Objective & Key Research
Questions
• What are the two models
• What are the main difference
between the models
• OR Study design
• Discussion of Preliminary
Results
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
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
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
Training
Care 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
Traditional Care Group Model
Integrated 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
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
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
Husbands
Local
administration
Problems with
CHWs
Pressure for
financial motivation
Anticipating an endline survey will be conducted in February
2013