Search

Nearly all global health initiatives give per diems to community health workers (CHWs) in poor countries for short-term work on disease-specific programs. We interviewed CHWs, supervisors, and high-level officials (n = 95) in 6 study sites across sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia in early 2012 about the per diems given to them by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. These per diems for CHWs ranged from $1.50 to $2.40 per day. International officials defended per diems for CHWs with an array of arguments, primarily that they were necessary to defray the expenses that workers incurred during campaigns. But high-level ministry of health officials in many countries were concerned that even small per diems were unsustainable. By contrast, CHWs saw per diems as a wage; the very small size of this wage led many to describe per diems as unjust. Per diem polio work existed in the larger context of limited and mostly exploitative options for female labor. Taking the perspectives of CHWs seriously would shift the international conversation about per diems toward questions of labor rights and justice in global health pay structures.

BACKGROUND: After 2 decades of focused efforts to eradicate polio, the impact of eradication activities on health systems continues to be controversial. This study evaluated the impact of polio eradication activities on routine immunization (RI) and primary healthcare (PHC). METHODS: Quantitative analysis assessed the effects of polio eradication campaigns on RI and maternal healthcare coverage. A systematic qualitative analysis in 7 countries in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa assessed impacts of polio eradication activities on key health system functions, using data from interviews, participant observation, and document review. RESULTS: Our quantitative analysis did not find compelling evidence of widespread and significant effects of polio eradication campaigns, either positive or negative, on measures of RI and maternal healthcare. Our qualitative analysis revealed context-specific positive impacts of polio eradication activities in many of our case studies, particularly disease surveillance and cold chain strengthening. These impacts were dependent on the initiative of policy makers. Negative impacts, including service interruption and public dissatisfaction, were observed primarily in districts with many campaigns per year. CONCLUSIONS: Polio eradication activities can provide support for RI and PHC, but many opportunities to do so remain missed. Increased commitment to scaling up best practices could lead to significant positive impacts.