Search

Background : Integrated community case management (iCCM) for malaria, pneumonia and diarrhea continues to be a recommended strategy to address child mortality in areas where access to health facilities is limited. Objective : To identify models of, and gaps in, institutionalization of benchmark components of iCCM into national health systems of low-and-middle-income countries, in order to draw lessons for future iCCM implementation and sustainability. Methods : A scoping review of relevant searchable policy documents and publications available in English literature was undertaken. Data were selected, collated and characterized by three reviewers using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Results : Overall 19 countries were reviewed. Despite the existence of discrete policies, most iCCM programs relied heavily on implementing partners and donor financing. Parallel implementing partner-run systems were often used to procure and supply iCCM medicines. These modes of implementation occasionally violated some health system strengthening principles. Drug stock-outs were still prominent in several countries, and iCCM indicators were sometimes not integrated into the national health management information system. There were no clearly defined motivation packages for both salaried and unsalaried workers, and there were several supervision challenges. Community-based performance-financing, use of technology with mobile devices (mHealth), small procedural improvements, and provision of targeted rather than universal services, were some of the promising interventions for improved iCCM institutionalization. Conclusion : Sustainable iCCM will require improved ownership by the benefiting communities and the local and central governments. Government commitment should be evident in budgeting processes and implementation strategies.

Background: Community health workers (CHWs) are an increasingly important component of health systems and programs. Despite the recognized role of supervision in ensuring CHWs are effective, supervision is often weak and under-supported. Little is known about what constitutes adequate supervision and how different supervision strategies influence performance, motivation, and retention., Objective: To determine the impact of supervision strategies used in low- and middle-income countries and discuss implementation and feasibility issues with a focus on CHWs., Design: A search of peer-reviewed, English language articles evaluating health provider supervision strategies was conducted through November 2013. Included articles evaluated the impact of supervision in low- or middle-income countries using a controlled, pre-/post- or observational design. Implementation and feasibility literature included both peer-reviewed and gray literature., Results: A total of 22 impact papers were identified. Papers were from a range of low- and middle-income countries addressing the supervision of a variety of health care providers. We classified interventions as testing supervision frequency, the supportive/facilitative supervision package, supervision mode (peer, group, and community), tools (self-assessment and checklists), focus (quality assurance/problem solving), and training. Outcomes included coverage, performance, and perception of quality but were not uniform across studies. Evidence suggests that improving supervision quality has a greater impact than increasing frequency of supervision alone. Supportive supervision packages, community monitoring, and quality improvement/problem-solving approaches show the most promise; however, evaluation of all strategies was weak., Conclusion: Few supervision strategies have been rigorously tested and data on CHW supervision is particularly sparse. This review highlights the diversity of supervision approaches that policy makers have to choose from and, while choices should be context specific, our findings suggest that high-quality supervision that focuses on supportive approaches, community monitoring, and/or quality assurance/problem solving may be most effective.