Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of primary healthcare integration: a scoping review of qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Primary healthcare (PHC) integration has been promoted globally as a tool for health sector reform and universal health coverage (UHC), especially in low-resource settings. However, for a range of reasons, implementation and impact remain variable. PHC integration, at its simplest, can be considered a way of delivering PHC services together that sometimes have been delivered as a series of separate or 'vertical' health programmes. Healthcare workers are known to shape the success of implementing reform interventions. Understanding healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration can therefore provide insights into the role healthcare workers play in shaping implementation efforts and the impact of PHC integration. However, the heterogeneity of the evidence base complicates our understanding of their role in shaping the implementation, delivery, and impact of PHC integration, and the role of contextual factors influencing their responses. OBJECTIVES: To map the qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of PHC integration to characterise the evidence base, with a view to better inform future syntheses on the topic. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 July 2020. We did not search for grey literature due to the many published records identified. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies with qualitative and mixed methods designs that reported on healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration from any country. We excluded settings other than PHC and community-based health care, participants other than healthcare workers, and interventions broader than healthcare services. We used translation support from colleagues and Google Translate software to screen non-English records. Where translation was not feasible we categorised these records as studies awaiting classification. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For data extraction, we used a customised data extraction form containing items developed using inductive and deductive approaches. We performed independent extraction in duplicate for a sample on 10% of studies allowed for sufficient agreement to be reached between review authors. We analysed extracted data quantitatively by counting the number of studies per indicator and converting these into proportions with additional qualitative descriptive information. Indicators included descriptions of study methods, country setting, intervention type, scope and strategies, implementing healthcare workers, and client target population. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 184 studies for analysis based on 191 included papers. Most studies were published in the last 12 years, with a sharp increase in the last five years. Studies mostly employed methods with cross-sectional qualitative design (mainly interviews and focus group discussions), and few used longitudinal or ethnographic (or both) designs. Studies covered 37 countries, with close to an even split in the proportions of high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There were gaps in the geographical spread for both HICs and LMICs and some countries were more dominant, such as the USA for HICs, South Africa for middle-income countries, and Uganda for low-income countries. Methods were mainly cross-sectional observational studies with few longitudinal studies. A minority of studies used an analytical conceptual model to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of the integration study. The main finding was the various levels of diversity found in the evidence base on PHC integration studies that examined healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences. The review identified six different configurations of health service streams that were being integrated and these were categorised as: mental and behavioural health; HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and sexual reproductive health; maternal, women, and child health; non-communicable diseases; and two broader categories, namely general PHC services, and allied and specialised services. Within the health streams, the review mapped the scope of the interventions as full or partial integration. The review mapped the use of three different integration strategies and categorised these as horizontal integration, service expansion, and service linkage strategies. The wide range of healthcare workers who participated in the implementation of integration interventions was mapped and these included policymakers, senior managers, middle and frontline managers, clinicians, allied healthcare professionals, lay healthcare workers, and health system support staff. We mapped the range of client target populations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides a systematic, descriptive overview of the heterogeneity in qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experience of PHC integration, pointing to diversity with regard to country settings; study types; client populations; healthcare worker populations; and intervention focus, scope, and strategies. It would be important for researchers and decision-makers to understand how the diversity in PHC integration intervention design, implementation, and context may influence how healthcare workers shape PHC integration impact. The classification of studies on the various dimensions (e.g. integration focus, scope, strategy, and type of healthcare workers and client populations) can help researchers to navigate the way the literature varies and for specifying potential questions for future qualitative evidence syntheses.

ANTECEDENTES: La integración de la atención primaria de salud (APS) se ha promovido en todo el mundo como herramienta para la mejora del sector sanitario y la cobertura sanitaria universal (CSU), especialmente en contextos con pocos recursos. Sin embargo, por diversas razones, la aplicación y el impacto todavía son variables. La integración de la APS, en su forma más simple, se puede considerar una forma de prestar conjuntamente servicios de APS que en ocasiones se han prestado como una serie de programas sanitarios separados o "verticales". Se sabe que el personal sanitario determina el éxito de la aplicación de las intervenciones de mejora. Por lo tanto, conocer las percepciones y experiencias de los trabajadores sanitarios sobre la integración de la APS puede ayudar a comprender la función que desempeñan en la configuración de los esfuerzos para la aplicación y el impacto de la integración de la APS. Sin embargo, la heterogeneidad de la base de evidencia complica la comprensión de su función en la configuración de la aplicación, la prestación y el impacto de la integración de la APS, así como el papel de los factores contextuales que influyen en sus respuestas. OBJETIVOS: Identificar la literatura cualitativa sobre las percepciones y experiencias del personal sanitario en relación con la integración de la APS para caracterizar la base de evidencia, con vistas a informar mejor las futuras síntesis sobre el tema. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se utilizaron los métodos exhaustivos estándar de búsqueda de Cochrane. La última fecha de búsqueda fue el 28 de julio de 2020. No se buscó literatura gris debido a los numerosos registros publicados identificados. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron estudios con diseños cualitativos y de métodos mixtos que informaran sobre las percepciones y experiencias de los profesionales sanitarios sobre la integración de la APS de cualquier país. Se excluyeron los contextos distintos de la APS y la atención sanitaria comunitaria, los participantes que no fueran profesionales sanitarios y las intervenciones que abarcaran más que los servicios sanitarios. Para revisar los registros que no estaban en inglés se contó con la traducción realizada con la ayuda de colegas y el programa Google Translate. En los casos en que la traducción no fue posible, estos registros se clasificaron como estudios pendientes de clasificación. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Para la extracción de los datos, se utilizó un formulario de extracción de datos personalizado que contenía ítems elaborados mediante enfoques inductivos y deductivos. La extracción independiente por duplicado de una muestra del 10% de los estudios permitió alcanzar un acuerdo suficiente entre los autores de la revisión. Los datos extraídos se analizaron cuantitativamente contando el número de estudios por indicador y convirtiéndolos en proporciones con información descriptiva cualitativa adicional. Los indicadores incluían descripciones de los métodos de estudio, el contexto del país, el tipo de intervención, el alcance y las estrategias, el personal sanitario encargado de aplicarla y la población destinataria. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: La revisión incluyó 184 estudios para el análisis sobre la base de 191 documentos incluidos. La mayoría de los estudios se publicaron en los últimos 12 años, con un fuerte aumento en los últimos cinco. La mayoría de los estudios emplearon métodos con un diseño cualitativo transversal (principalmente entrevistas y debates en grupos de discusión), y pocos utilizaron diseños longitudinales o etnográficos (o ambos). Los estudios abarcaron 37 países, con una proporción casi equitativa de países de ingresos altos (PIA) y países de ingresos bajos y medios (PIBM). Tanto en los PIA como en los PIBM, la distribución geográfica presentaba carencias y algunos países eran más dominantes, como EE. UU. en los países de ingresos altos, Sudáfrica en los de ingresos medios y Uganda en los de ingresos bajos. Los métodos fueron principalmente estudios observacionales transversales con pocos estudios longitudinales. Una minoría de estudios utilizó un modelo conceptual analítico para orientar el diseño, la aplicación y la evaluación del estudio de integración. El principal hallazgo fue los distintos niveles de diversidad encontrados en la base de evidencia sobre estudios de integración de la APS que examinaron las percepciones y experiencias de los trabajadores sanitarios. La revisión identificó seis configuraciones diferentes de flujos de servicios sanitarios que se estaban integrando y que se clasificaron como: salud mental y del comportamiento; VIH, tuberculosis (TB) y salud sexual y reproductiva; salud materna, de la mujer y del niño; enfermedades no transmisibles; y dos categorías más amplias, a saber, servicios generales de APS y servicios afines y especializados. Dentro de los flujos sanitarios, la revisión clasificó el alcance de las intervenciones como integración total o parcial. La revisión identificó el uso de tres estrategias de integración diferentes y las clasificó como estrategias de integración horizontal, ampliación de los servicios y vinculación de los servicios. Se identificó el amplio abanico de profesionales sanitarios que participaron en la aplicación de las intervenciones de integración: responsables de políticas sanitarias, altos directivos, directivos intermedios y de primera línea, médicos, profesionales sanitarios asociados, trabajadores sanitarios no técnicos y personal de apoyo de los sistemas sanitarios. Se identificó la variedad de poblaciones destinatarias. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Esta revisión sistemática exploratoria proporciona una revisión global sistemática y descriptiva de la heterogeneidad de la bibliografía cualitativa sobre las percepciones y experiencias de los profesionales sanitarios con respecto a la integración de la APS, señalando la diversidad con respecto a los contextos nacionales, los tipos de estudio, las poblaciones de clientes, las poblaciones de profesionales sanitarios y el enfoque, el alcance y las estrategias de la intervención. Sería importante que los investigadores y los responsables de la toma de decisiones comprendieran cómo la diversidad en el diseño, la aplicación y el contexto de la intervención de integración de la APS podría influir en la forma en que los trabajadores sanitarios conciben el impacto de la integración de la APS. La clasificación de los estudios en función de las distintas dimensiones (p. ej., enfoque de la integración, alcance, estrategia y tipo de trabajadores sanitarios y poblaciones de clientes) puede ayudar a los investigadores a orientarse en la forma en que varía la bibliografía y especificar posibles preguntas para futuras síntesis de evidencia cualitativa.

Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of primary healthcare integration: a scoping review of qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Primary healthcare (PHC) integration has been promoted globally as a tool for health sector reform and universal health coverage (UHC), especially in low-resource settings. However, for a range of reasons, implementation and impact remain variable. PHC integration, at its simplest, can be considered a way of delivering PHC services together that sometimes have been delivered as a series of separate or 'vertical' health programmes. Healthcare workers are known to shape the success of implementing reform interventions. Understanding healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration can therefore provide insights into the role healthcare workers play in shaping implementation efforts and the impact of PHC integration. However, the heterogeneity of the evidence base complicates our understanding of their role in shaping the implementation, delivery, and impact of PHC integration, and the role of contextual factors influencing their responses. OBJECTIVES: To map the qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of PHC integration to characterise the evidence base, with a view to better inform future syntheses on the topic. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 July 2020. We did not search for grey literature due to the many published records identified. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies with qualitative and mixed methods designs that reported on healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration from any country. We excluded settings other than PHC and community-based health care, participants other than healthcare workers, and interventions broader than healthcare services. We used translation support from colleagues and Google Translate software to screen non-English records. Where translation was not feasible we categorised these records as studies awaiting classification. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For data extraction, we used a customised data extraction form containing items developed using inductive and deductive approaches. We performed independent extraction in duplicate for a sample on 10% of studies allowed for sufficient agreement to be reached between review authors. We analysed extracted data quantitatively by counting the number of studies per indicator and converting these into proportions with additional qualitative descriptive information. Indicators included descriptions of study methods, country setting, intervention type, scope and strategies, implementing healthcare workers, and client target population. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 184 studies for analysis based on 191 included papers. Most studies were published in the last 12 years, with a sharp increase in the last five years. Studies mostly employed methods with cross-sectional qualitative design (mainly interviews and focus group discussions), and few used longitudinal or ethnographic (or both) designs. Studies covered 37 countries, with close to an even split in the proportions of high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There were gaps in the geographical spread for both HICs and LMICs and some countries were more dominant, such as the USA for HICs, South Africa for middle-income countries, and Uganda for low-income countries. Methods were mainly cross-sectional observational studies with few longitudinal studies. A minority of studies used an analytical conceptual model to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of the integration study. The main finding was the various levels of diversity found in the evidence base on PHC integration studies that examined healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences. The review identified six different configurations of health service streams that were being integrated and these were categorised as: mental and behavioural health; HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and sexual reproductive health; maternal, women, and child health; non-communicable diseases; and two broader categories, namely general PHC services, and allied and specialised services. Within the health streams, the review mapped the scope of the interventions as full or partial integration. The review mapped the use of three different integration strategies and categorised these as horizontal integration, service expansion, and service linkage strategies. The wide range of healthcare workers who participated in the implementation of integration interventions was mapped and these included policymakers, senior managers, middle and frontline managers, clinicians, allied healthcare professionals, lay healthcare workers, and health system support staff. We mapped the range of client target populations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides a systematic, descriptive overview of the heterogeneity in qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experience of PHC integration, pointing to diversity with regard to country settings; study types; client populations; healthcare worker populations; and intervention focus, scope, and strategies. It would be important for researchers and decision-makers to understand how the diversity in PHC integration intervention design, implementation, and context may influence how healthcare workers shape PHC integration impact. The classification of studies on the various dimensions (e.g. integration focus, scope, strategy, and type of healthcare workers and client populations) can help researchers to navigate the way the literature varies and for specifying potential questions for future qualitative evidence syntheses.

Integrated community case management of childhood illness in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The leading causes of mortality globally in children younger than five years of age (under-fives), and particularly in the regions of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Southern Asia, in 2018 were infectious diseases, including pneumonia (15%), diarrhoea (8%), malaria (5%) and newborn sepsis (7%) (UNICEF 2019). Nutrition-related factors contributed to 45% of under-five deaths (UNICEF 2019). World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), in collaboration with other development partners, have developed an approach - now known as integrated community case management (iCCM) - to bring treatment services for children 'closer to home'. The iCCM approach provides integrated case management services for two or more illnesses - including diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria, severe acute malnutrition or neonatal sepsis - among under-fives at community level (i.e. outside of healthcare facilities) by lay health workers where there is limited access to health facility-based case management services (WHO/UNICEF 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of the integrated community case management (iCCM) strategy on coverage of appropriate treatment for childhood illness by an appropriate provider, quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality, adverse events and coverage of careseeking for children younger than five years of age in low- and middle-income countries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL on 7 November 2019, Virtual Health Library on 8 November 2019, and Popline on 5 December 2018, three other databases on 22 March 2019 and two trial registers on 8 November 2019. We performed reference checking, and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after studies (CBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) studies and repeated measures studies comparing generic WHO/UNICEF iCCM (or local adaptation thereof) for at least two iCCM diseases with usual facility services (facility treatment services) with or without single disease community case management (CCM). We included studies reporting on coverage of appropriate treatment for childhood illness by an appropriate provider, quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality, adverse events and coverage of careseeking for under-fives in low- and middle-income countries. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened abstracts, screened full texts and extracted data using a standardised data collection form adapted from the EPOC Good Practice Data Collection Form. We resolved any disagreements through discussion or, if required, we consulted a third review author not involved in the original screening. We contacted study authors for clarification or additional details when necessary. We reported risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and hazard ratios (HR) for time to event outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for clustering, where possible. We used estimates of effect from the primary analysis reported by the investigators, where possible. We analysed the effects of randomized trials and other study types separately. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies, of which three were cluster RCTs and four were CBAs. Six of the seven studies were in SSA and one study was in Southern Asia. The iCCM components and inputs were fairly consistent across the seven studies with notable variation for the training and deployment component (e.g. on payment of iCCM providers) and the system component (e.g. on improving information systems). When compared to usual facility services, we are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on coverage of appropriate treatment from an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.19; 2 CBA studies, 5898 children; very low-certainty evidence). iCCM may have little to no effect on neonatal mortality (HR 1.01, 95% 0.73 to 1.28; 2 trials, 65,209 children; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on infant mortality (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; 2 trials, 60,480 children; very low-certainty evidence) and under-five mortality (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.37; 1 trial, 4729 children; very low-certainty evidence). iCCM probably increases coverage of careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness by 68% (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.27; 2 trials, 9853 children; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported quality of care, severity of illness or adverse events for this comparison. When compared to usual facility services plus CCM for malaria, we are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on coverage of appropriate treatment from an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (very low-certainty evidence) and iCCM may have little or no effect on careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17; 1 trial, 811 children; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality or adverse events for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: iCCM probably increases coverage of careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness. However, the evidence presented here underscores the importance of moving beyond training and deployment to valuing iCCM providers, strengthening health systems and engaging community systems.

Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management.

BACKGROUND: A well-functioning routine health information system (RHIS) can provide the information needed for health system management, for governance, accountability, planning, policy making, surveillance and quality improvement, but poor information support has been identified as a major obstacle for improving health system management. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to improve routine health information systems in terms of RHIS performance, and also, in terms of improved health system management performance, and improved patient and population health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid in May 2019. We searched Global Health, Ovid and PsycInfo in April 2016. In January 2020 we searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and in OpenGrey, and for ongoing trials using the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. In October 2019 we also did a cited reference search using Web of Science, and a 'similar articles' search in PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and time-series studies comparing routine health information system interventions, with controls, in primary, hospital or community health care settings. Participants included clinical staff and management, district management and community health workers using routine information systems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed records to identify studies for inclusion, extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias. Interventions and outcomes were too varied across studies to allow for pooled risk analysis. We present a 'Summary of findings' table for each intervention comparisons broadly categorised into Technical and Organisational (or a combination), and report outcomes on data quality and service quality. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies: four cluster randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies, from Africa and South America. Three studies evaluated technical interventions, one study evaluated an organisational intervention, and two studies evaluated a combination of technical and organisational interventions. Four studies reported on data quality and six studies reported on service quality. In terms of data quality, a web-based electronic TB laboratory information system probably reduces the length of time to reporting of TB test results, and probably reduces the overall rate of recording errors of TB test results, compared to a paper-based system (moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of the electronic laboratory information system on the recording rate of serious (misidentification) errors for TB test results compared to a paper-based system (very low certainty evidence). Misidentification errors are inaccuracies in transferring test results between an electronic register and patients' clinical charts. We are also uncertain about the effect of the intervention on service quality (timeliness of starting or changing a patient's TB treatment) (very low certainty evidence). A hand-held electronic device probably improves the length of time to report TB test results, and probably reduces the total frequency of recording errors in TB test results between the laboratory notebook and the electronic information record system, compared to a paper-based system (moderate-certainty evidence). We are, however, uncertain about the effect of the intervention on the frequency of serious (misidentification) errors in recording between the laboratory notebook and the electronic information record, compared to a paper-based system (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of a hospital electronic health information system on service quality (length of time outpatients spend at hospital, length of hospital stay, and hospital revenue collection), compared to a paper-based system (very low certainty evidence). High-intensity brief text messaging (SMS) may make little or no difference to data quality (in terms of completeness of documentation of pregnancy outcomes), compared to low-intensity brief text messaging (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of electronic drug stock notification (with either data management support or product transfer support) on service quality (in terms of transporting stock and stock levels), compared to paper-based stock notification (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of health information strengthening (where it is part of comprehensive service quality improvement intervention) on service quality (health worker motivation, receipt of training by health workers, health information index scores, quality of clinical observation of children and adults) (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review indicates mixed effects of mainly technical interventions to improve data quality, with gaps in evidence on interventions aimed at enhancing data-informed health system management. There is a gap in interventions studying information support beyond clinical management, such as for human resources, finances, drug supply and governance. We need to have a better understanding of the causal mechanisms by which information support may affect change in management decision-making, to inform robust intervention design and evaluation methods.

Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth), refers to healthcare practices supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablets. Within primary care, health workers often use mobile devices to register clients, track their health, and make decisions about care, as well as to communicate with clients and other health workers. An understanding of how health workers relate to, and experience mHealth, can help in its implementation. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise qualitative research evidence on health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services, and to develop hypotheses about why some technologies are more effective than others. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index in January 2018. We searched Global Health in December 2015. We screened the reference lists of included studies and key references and searched seven sources for grey literature (16 February to 5 March 2018). We re-ran the search strategies in February 2020. We screened these records and any studies that we identified as potentially relevant are awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods. We included studies of mHealth programmes that were part of primary healthcare services. These services could be implemented in public or private primary healthcare facilities, community and workplace, or the homes of clients. We included all categories of health workers, as well as those persons who supported the delivery and management of the mHealth programmes. We excluded participants identified as technical staff who developed and maintained the mHealth technology, without otherwise being involved in the programme delivery. We included studies conducted in any country. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed abstracts, titles and full-text papers according to the inclusion criteria. We found 53 studies that met the inclusion criteria and sampled 43 of these for our analysis. For the 43 sampled studies, we extracted information, such as country, health worker category, and the mHealth technology. We used a thematic analysis process. We used GRADE-CERQual to assess our confidence in the findings. MAIN RESULTS: Most of the 43 included sample studies were from low- or middle-income countries. In many of the studies, the mobile devices had decision support software loaded onto them, which showed the steps the health workers had to follow when they provided health care. Other uses included in-person and/or text message communication, and recording clients' health information. Almost half of the studies looked at health workers' use of mobile devices for mother, child, and newborn health. We have moderate or high confidence in the following findings. mHealth changed how health workers worked with each other: health workers appreciated being more connected to colleagues, and thought that this improved co-ordination and quality of care. However, some described problems when senior colleagues did not respond or responded in anger. Some preferred face-to-face connection with colleagues. Some believed that mHealth improved their reporting, while others compared it to "big brother watching". mHealth changed how health workers delivered care: health workers appreciated how mHealth let them take on new tasks, work flexibly, and reach clients in difficult-to-reach areas. They appreciated mHealth when it improved feedback, speed and workflow, but not when it was slow or time consuming. Some health workers found decision support software useful; others thought it threatened their clinical skills. Most health workers saw mHealth as better than paper, but some preferred paper. Some health workers saw mHealth as creating more work. mHealth led to new forms of engagement and relationships with clients and communities: health workers felt that communicating with clients by mobile phone improved care and their relationships with clients, but felt that some clients needed face-to-face contact. Health workers were aware of the importance of protecting confidential client information when using mobile devices. Some health workers did not mind being contacted by clients outside working hours, while others wanted boundaries. Health workers described how some community members trusted health workers that used mHealth while others were sceptical. Health workers pointed to problems when clients needed to own their own phones. Health workers' use and perceptions of mHealth could be influenced by factors tied to costs, the health worker, the technology, the health system and society, poor network access, and poor access to electricity: some health workers did not mind covering extra costs. Others complained that phone credit was not delivered on time. Health workers who were accustomed to using mobile phones were sometimes more positive towards mHealth. Others with less experience, were sometimes embarrassed about making mistakes in front of clients or worried about job security. Health workers wanted training, technical support, user-friendly devices, and systems that were integrated into existing electronic health systems. The main challenges health workers experienced were poor network connections, access to electricity, and the cost of recharging phones. Other problems included damaged phones. Factors outside the health system also influenced how health workers experienced mHealth, including language, gender, and poverty issues. Health workers felt that their commitment to clients helped them cope with these challenges. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings propose a nuanced view about mHealth programmes. The complexities of healthcare delivery and human interactions defy simplistic conclusions on how health workers will perceive and experience their use of mHealth. Perceptions reflect the interplay between the technology, contexts, and human attributes. Detailed descriptions of the programme, implementation processes and contexts, alongside effectiveness studies, will help to unravel this interplay to formulate hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of mHealth.

Contracting out to improve the use of clinical health services and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Contracting out of governmental health services is a financing strategy that governs the way in which public sector funds are used to have services delivered by non-governmental health service providers (NGPs). It represents a contract between the government and an NGP, detailing the mechanisms and conditions by which the latter should provide health care on behalf of the government. Contracting out is intended to improve the delivery and use of healthcare services. This Review updates a Cochrane Review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of contracting out governmental clinical health services to non-governmental service provider/s, on (i) utilisation of clinical health services; (ii) improvement in population health outcomes; (iii) improvement in equity of utilisation of these services; (iv) costs and cost-effectiveness of delivering the services; and (v) improvement in health systems performance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, ProQuest, and Global Health on 07 April 2017, along with two trials registers - ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform - on 17 November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies, comparing government-delivered clinical health services versus those contracted out to NGPs, or comparing different models of non-governmental-delivered clinical health services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened all records, extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the net effect for all outcomes. A positive value favours the intervention whilst a negative value favours the control. Effect estimates are presented with 95% confidence intervals. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and we prepared a Summary of Findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies, a cluster-randomised trial conducted in Cambodia, and a controlled before-after study conducted in Guatemala. Both studies reported that contracting out over 12 months probably makes little or no difference in (i) immunisation uptake of children 12 to 24 months old (moderate-certainty evidence), (ii) the number of women who had more than two antenatal care visits (moderate-certainty evidence), and (iii) female use of contraceptives (moderate-certainty evidence).The Cambodia trial reported that contracting out may make little or no difference in the mortality over 12 months of children younger than one year of age (net effect = -4.3%, intervention effect P = 0.36, clustered standard error (SE) = 3.0%; low-certainty evidence), nor to the incidence of childhood diarrhoea (net effect = -16.2%, intervention effect P = 0.07, clustered SE = 19.0%; low-certainty evidence). The Cambodia study found that contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending over 12 months on curative care (net effect = $ -19.25 (2003 USD), intervention effect P = 0.01, clustered SE = $ 5.12; moderate-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report equity in the use of clinical health services and in adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update confirms the findings of the original review. Contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending on curative care (moderate-certainty evidence), but probably makes little or no difference in other health utilisation or service delivery outcomes (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). Therefore, contracting out programmes may be no better or worse than government-provided services, although additional rigorously designed studies may change this result. The literature provides many examples of contracting out programmes, which implies that this is a feasible response when governments fail to provide good clinical health care. Future contracting out programmes should be framed within a rigorous study design to allow valid and reliable measures of their effects. Such studies should include qualitative research that assesses the views of programme implementers and beneficiaries, and records implementation mechanisms. This approach may reveal enablers for, and barriers to, successful implementation of such programmes.

The provision of TB and HIV/AIDS treatment support by lay health workers in South Africa: a time-and-motion study.

BACKGROUND: Lay or community health workers (LHWs) are an important human resource in primary health care, and contribute to improving access to care. However, optimal use of LHWs within the health system is often hampered by a poor understanding of how this cadre organizes its work. This study aimed to better understand how LHWs organize and structure their time in providing treatment and adherence support to people on TB treatment and/or antiretroviral therapy (ART) in South Africa. METHODS: Fourteen LHWs participated across three low-income peri-urban communities in Cape Town. Each LHW was observed by a researcher for one day, and data collected on each activity and the time spent on it. Data were summarized in the following categories: travel to the patient's home, waiting time and patient contact time. RESULTS: Ninety-seven attempted visits to patients were observed, and patients were located in 69 of these. On average, LHWs conducted six visits per day, each lasting an average of nine minutes. Forty-six percent of the observed time was spent with patients, with the balance spent on 'non-contact' activities, including walking to and waiting for patients. The average walking time between patients was 8 minutes (range: 3 to 15 minutes). Activities during visits comprised medical care (that is ensuring that medication was being taken correctly and that patients were not experiencing side-effects) and social support. Other tasks included conducting home assessments to determine risks to treatment adherence, and tracing patients who had defaulted from treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Because of their tasks and working environment, LHWs providing support to people on TB treatment and ART in South Africa spend a substantial proportion of their time on 'non-contact' activities. Programme managers need to take this into account when developing job descriptions and determining patient case-loads for this cadre. More research is also needed to explore whether these findings apply to other tasks and settings. Strategies should be explored to mitigate the challenges that LHWs experience in locating and supporting patients, including the use of new technologies, such as mobile phones.

When the trivial becomes meaningful: reflections on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa.

This paper reflects on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa. The programme, implemented in two low-income communities, focused on the reduction of risks to unintentional childhood injuries. The evaluation comprised a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, including observations in conjunction with an evaluator's journal, diaries kept by the home visitors, interviews and focus group discussions. Short questionnaires were administered to programme staff and home visitors. Caregivers were visited to attain their assessment of visitors and the programme. These methods resulted in a detailed description of implementation processes, but more importantly gave insight into the experiences and perceptions of the social actors, i.e. programme staff, visitors and caregivers. It also offered possible explanations for the difference in the intervention effect between the two sites. Two major challenges to the evaluation were: (i) the power-imbalance between the evaluator and community participants (visitors and caregivers) and (ii) the language- and cultural barriers between evaluator and community participants. The evaluation demonstrated that process information can contribute towards explaining outcome results, but also that active participation from all social actors is a necessary condition if process evaluations are to result in programme improvement.