Does social capital influence community health worker knowledge, attitude and practices towards COVID-19? Findings from a cross-sectional study in Malang district, Indonesia.

Community health workers (CHWs) are the first point of contact with the primary health care system in many low- and middle-income countries and are situated to play a critical role in the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The knowledge, attitude and practices of CHWs regarding COVID-19 may be influenced by their level of trust and participation in the community, collectively defined as their level of social capital. To assess whether social capital influences CHWs' knowledge, attitude and practices related to COVID-19, we conducted a web-based survey of CHWs (n = 478) in Malang district, Indonesia between October 2020 and January 2021. CHW social capital was measured using the Shortened Adapted Social Capital Assessment Tool. Multiple logistic regression results show that cognitive social capital was associated with higher self-reported knowledge of COVID-19, more confidence in answering COVID-related questions from the community and feeling safe from COVID-19 when working. Membership of community organisations was associated with a higher number of COVID-related tasks conducted. Thus, CHWs in Malang district with higher levels of cognitive social capital were more likely to be confident in their knowledge and ability to respond to COVID-19, and CHWs embedded in their community were more likely to be engaged in pandemic response duties. Our findings suggest that policies aimed at promoting CHW embeddedness, targeted recruitment and addressing training needs hold promise in strengthening the positive contribution of the community health workforce to the COVID-19 response.

Assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a financial versus behavioural incentive-based intervention for community health workers in rural Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends that community health workers (CHWs) receive a mix of financial and non-financial incentives, yet notes that there is limited evidence to support the use of one type of incentive (i.e. financial or non-financial) over another. In preparation for a larger scale trial, we investigated the acceptability and feasibility of two different forms of incentives for CHWs in Malang District, Indonesia. METHODS: CHWs working on a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk screening and management programme in two villages were assigned to receive either a financial or non-financial incentive for 6 months. In the financial incentives village, CHWs (n = 20) received 16,000 IDR (USD 1.1) per patient followed up or 500,000 IDR (USD 34.1) if they followed up 100% of their assigned high-risk CVD patients each month. In the non-financial incentive village, CHWs (n = 20) were eligible to receive a Quality Care Certificate for following up the highest number of high-risk CVD patients each month, awarded in a public ceremony. At the end of the 6-month intervention period, focus group discussions were conducted with CHWs and semi-structured interviews with programme administrators to investigate acceptability, facilitators and barriers to implementation and feasibility of the incentive models. Data on monthly CHW follow-up activity were analysed using descriptive statistics to assess the preliminary impact of each incentive on service delivery outcomes, and CHW motivation levels were assessed pre- and post-implementation. RESULTS: Factors beyond the control of the study significantly interrupted the implementation of the financial incentive, particularly the threat of violence towards CHWs due to village government elections. Despite CHWs reporting that both the financial and non-financial incentives were acceptable, programme administrators questioned the sustainability of the non-financial incentive and reported CHWs were ambivalent towards them. CHW service delivery outcomes increased 17% for CHWs eligible for the non-financial incentive and 21% for CHWs eligible for the financial incentive. There was a statistically significant increase (p < 0.0001) in motivation scores for the performance domain in both villages. CONCLUSION: It was feasible to deliver both a performance-based financial and non-financial incentive to CHWs in Malang District, Indonesia, and both incentive types were acceptable to CHWs and programme administrators. Evidence of preliminary effectiveness also suggests that both the financial and non-financial incentives were associated with improved motivation and service delivery outcomes. These findings will inform the next phase of incentive design, in which incentive feasibility and preliminary effectiveness will need to be considered alongside their longer-term sustainability within the health system.