Search

BackgroundIn 2017, India was home to nearly 20% of maternal and child deaths occurring globally. Accredited social health activists (ASHAs) act as the frontline for health services delivery in India, providing a range of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child health, and nutrition (RMNCH&N) services. Empirical evidence on ASHAs' knowledge is limited, yet is a critical determinant of the quality of health services provided. We assessed the determinants of RMNCH&N knowledge among ASHAs and examined the reliability of alternative modalities of survey delivery, including face-to-face and caller attended telephone interviews (phone surveys) in 4 districts of Madhya Pradesh, India.MethodsWe carried out face-to-face surveys among a random cross-sectional sample of ASHAs (n = 1,552), and administered a follow-up test-retest survey within 2 weeks of the initial survey to a subsample of ASHAs (n = 173). We interviewed a separate sub-sample of ASHAs 2 weeks of the face-to-face interview over the phone (n = 155). Analyses included bivariate analyses, multivariable linear regression, and prevalence and bias adjusted kappa analyses.FindingsThe average ASHA knowledge score was 64% and ranged across sub-domains from 71% for essential newborn care, 71% for WASH/ diarrhea, 64% for infant feeding, 61% for family planning, and 60% for maternal health. Leading determinants of knowledge included geographic location, age ConclusionsOverall results highlight important gaps in the knowledge of ASHAs. Findings on the reliability of phone surveys led to the development of a tool, which can be widely used for the routine, low cost measurement of ASHA RMNCH&N knowledge in India.

Health committees are a common strategy to foster community participation in health. Efforts to strengthen committees often focus on technical inputs to improve committee form (e.g. representative membership) and functioning (e.g. meeting procedures). However, porous and interconnected contextual spheres also mediate committee effectiveness. Using a framework for contextual analysis, we explored the contextual features that facilitated or hindered Village Health, Sanitation and Nutrition Committee (VHSNC) functionality in rural north India. We conducted interviews (n = 74), focus groups (n = 18) and observation over 1.5 years. Thematic content analysis enabled the identification and grouping of themes, and detailed exploration of sub-themes. While the intervention succeeded in strengthening committee form and functioning, participant accounts illuminated the different ways in which contextual influences impinged on VHSNC efficacy. Women and marginalized groups navigated social hierarchies that curtailed their ability to assert themselves in the presence of men and powerful local families. These dynamics were not static and unchanging, illustrated by pre-existing cross-caste problem solving, and the committee's creation of opportunities for the careful violation of social norms. Resource and capacity deficits in government services limited opportunities to build relationships between health system actors and committee members and engendered mistrust of government institutions. Fragmented administrative accountability left committee members bearing responsibility for improving local health without access to stakeholders who could support or respond to their efforts. The committee's narrow authority was at odds with widespread community needs, and committee members struggled to involve diverse government services across the health, sanitation, and nutrition sectors. Multiple parallel systems (political decentralization, media and other village groups) presented opportunities to create more enabling VHSNC contexts, although the potential to harness these opportunities was largely unmet. This study highlights the urgent need for supportive contexts in which people can not only participate in health committees, but also access the power and resources needed to bring about actual improvements to their health and wellbeing.

BACKGROUND:Community participation is a major principle of people centered health systems, with considerable research highlighting its intrinsic value and strategic importance. Existing reviews largely focus on the effectiveness of community participation with less attention to how community participation is supported in health systems intervention research. OBJECTIVE:To explore the extent, nature and quality of community participation in health systems intervention research in low- and middle-income countries. METHODOLOGY:We searched for peer-reviewed, English language literature published between January 2000 and May 2012 through four electronic databases. Search terms combined the concepts of community, capability/participation, health systems research and low- and middle-income countries. The initial search yielded 3,092 articles, of which 260 articles with more than nominal community participation were identified and included. We further excluded 104 articles due to lower levels of community participation across the research cycle and poor description of the process of community participation. Out of the remaining 160 articles with rich community participation, we further examined 64 articles focused on service delivery and governance within health systems research. RESULTS:Most articles were led by authors in high income countries and many did not consistently list critical aspects of study quality. Articles were most likely to describe community participation in health promotion interventions (78%, 202/260), even though they were less participatory than other health systems areas. Community involvement in governance and supply chain management was less common (12%, 30/260 and 9%, 24/260 respectively), but more participatory. Articles cut across all health conditions and varied by scale and duration, with those that were implemented at national scale or over more than five years being mainstreamed by government. Most articles detailed improvements in service availability, accessibility and acceptability, with fewer efforts focused on quality, and few designs able to measure impact on health outcomes. With regards to participation, most articles supported community's in implementing interventions (95%, n = 247/260), in contrast to involving communities in identifying and defining problems (18%, n = 46/260). Many articles did not discuss who in communities participated, with just over a half of the articles disaggregating any information by sex. Articles were largely under theorized, and only five mentioned power or control. Majority of the articles (57/64) described community participation processes as being collaborative with fewer describing either community mobilization or community empowerment. Intrinsic individual motivations, community-level trust, strong external linkages, and supportive institutional processes facilitated community participation, while lack of training, interest and information, along with weak financial sustainability were challenges. Supportive contextual factors included decentralization reforms and engagement with social movements. CONCLUSION:Despite positive examples, community participation in health systems interventions was variable, with few being truly community directed. Future research should more thoroughly engage with community participation theory, recognize the power relations inherent in community participation, and be more realistic as to how much communities can participate and cognizant of who decides that.