Systematic review of performance-enhancing health worker supervision approaches in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The strength of a health system-and ultimately the health of a population-depends to a large degree on health worker performance. However, insufficient support to build, manage and optimize human resources for health (HRH) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) results in inadequate health workforce performance, perpetuating health inequities and low-quality health services. METHODS: The USAID-funded Human Resources for Health in 2030 Program (HRH2030) conducted a systematic review of studies documenting supervision enhancements and approaches that improved health worker performance to highlight components associated with these interventions' effectiveness. Structured by a conceptual framework to classify the inputs, processes, and results, the review assessed 57 supervision studies since 2010 in approximately 29 LMICs. RESULTS: Of the successful supervision approaches described in the 57 studies reviewed, 44 were externally funded pilots, which is a limitation. Thirty focused on community health worker (CHW) programs. Health worker supervision was informed by health system data for 38 approaches (67%) and 22 approaches used continuous quality improvement (QI) (39%). Many successful approaches integrated digital supervision technologies (e.g., SmartPhones, mHealth applications) to support existing data systems and complement other health system activities. Few studies were adapted, scaled, or sustained, limiting reports of cost-effectiveness or impact. CONCLUSION: Building on results from the review, to increase health worker supervision effectiveness we recommend to: integrate evidence-based, QI tools and processes; integrate digital supervision data into supervision processes; increase use of health system information and performance data when planning supervision visits to prioritize lowest-performing areas; scale and replicate successful models across service delivery areas and geographies; expand and institutionalize supervision to reach, prepare, protect, and support frontline health workers, especially during health emergencies; transition and sustain supervision efforts with domestic human and financial resources, including communities, for holistic workforce support. In conclusion, effective health worker supervision is informed by health system data, uses continuous quality improvement (QI), and employs digital technologies integrated into other health system activities and existing data systems to enable a whole system approach. Effective supervision enhancements and innovations should be better integrated, scaled, and sustained within existing systems to improve access to quality health care.

A conceptual framework for measuring community health workforce performance within primary health care systems.

BACKGROUND: With the 40th anniversary of the Declaration of Alma-Ata, a global effort is underway to re-focus on strengthening primary health care systems, with emphasis on leveraging community health workers (CHWs) towards the goal of achieving universal health coverage for all. Institutionalizing effective, sustainable community health systems is currently limited by a lack of standard metrics for measuring CHW performance and the systems they work within. Developed through iterative consultations, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and in partnership with USAID and UNICEF, this paper details a framework, list of indicators, and measurement considerations for monitoring CHW performance in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: A review of peer-reviewed articles, reports, and global data collection tools was conducted to identify key measurement domains in monitoring CHW performance. Three consultations were successively convened with global stakeholders, community health implementers, advocates, measurement experts, and Ministry of Health representatives using a modified Delphi approach to build consensus on priority indicators. During this process, a structured, web-based survey was administered to identify the importance and value of specific measurement domains, sub-domains, and indicators determined through the literature reviews and initial stakeholder consultations. Indicators with more than 75% support from participants were further refined with expert qualitative input. RESULTS: Twenty-one sub-domains for measurement were identified including measurement of incentives for CHWs, supervision and performance appraisal, data use, data reporting, service delivery, quality of services, CHW absenteeism and attrition, community use of services, experience of services, referral/counter-referral, credibility/trust, and programmatic costs. Forty-six indicators were agreed upon to measure the sub-domains. In the absence of complete population enumeration and digitized health information systems, the quality of metrics to monitor CHW programs is limited. CONCLUSIONS: Better data collection approaches at the community level are needed to strengthen management of CHW programs and community health systems. The proposed list of metrics balances exhaustive and pragmatic measurement of CHW performance within primary healthcare systems. Adoption of the proposed framework and associated indicators by CHW program implementors may improve programmatic effectiveness, strengthen their accountability to national community health systems, drive programmatic quality improvement, and plausibly improve the impact of these programs.

The Human Resources for Health Effort Index: a tool to assess and inform Strategic Health Workforce Investments.

BACKGROUND: Despite its importance, the field of human resources for health (HRH) has lagged in developing methods to measure its status and progress in low- and middle-income countries suffering a workforce crisis. Measures of professional health worker densities and distribution are purely numerical, unreliable, and do not represent the full spectrum of workers providing health services. To provide more information on the multi-dimensional characteristics of human resources for health, in 2013-2014, the global USAID-funded CapacityPlus project, led by IntraHealth International, developed and tested a 79-item HRH Effort Index modeled after the widely used Family Planning Effort Index. METHODS: The index includes seven recognized HRH dimensions: Leadership and Advocacy; Policy and Governance; Finance; Education and Training; Recruitment, Distribution, and Retention; Human Resources Management; and Monitoring, Evaluation, and Information Systems. Each item is scored from 1 to 10 and scores are averaged with equal weights for each dimension and overall. The questionnaire is applied to knowledgeable informants from public, nongovernmental organization, and private sectors in each country. A pilot test among 49 respondents in Kenya and Nigeria provided useful information to improve, combine, and streamline questions. CapacityPlus applied the revised 50-item questionnaire in 2015 in Burkina Faso, Dominican Republic, Ghana, and Mali, among 92 respondents. Additionally, the index was applied subnationally in the Dominican Republic (16 respondents) and in a consensus-building meeting in Mali (43 respondents) after the national application. RESULTS: The results revealed a range of scores between 3.7 and 6.2 across dimensions, for overall scores between 4.8 and 5.5. Dimensions with lower scores included Recruitment, Distribution, and Retention, while Leadership and Advocacy had higher scores. CONCLUSIONS: The tool proved to be well understood and provided key qualitative information on the health workforce to assist in health systems strengthening. It is expected that subsequent applications should provide more information for comparison purposes, to refine aspects of the questionnaire and to correlate scores with measures of service outputs and outcomes.

Putting health workers at the centre of health system investments in COVID-19 and beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the implications of chronic underinvestment in health workforce development, particularly in resource-constrained health systems. Inadequate health workforce diversity, insufficient training and remuneration, and limited support and protection reduce health system capacity to equitably maintain health service delivery while meeting urgent health emergency demands. Applying the Health Worker Life Cycle Approach provides a useful conceptual framework that adapts a health labour market approach to outline key areas and recommendations for health workforce investment-building, managing and optimising-to systematically meet the needs of health workers and the systems they support. It also emphasises the importance of protecting the workforce as a cross-cutting investment, which is especially important in a health crisis like COVID-19. While the global pandemic has spurred intermittent health workforce investments required to immediately respond to COVID-19, applying this 'lifecycle approach' to guide policy implementation and financing interventions is critical to centering health workers as stewards of health systems, thus strengthening resilience to public health threats, sustainably responding to community needs and providing more equitable, patient-centred care.