BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) describes the use of portable electronic devices with software applications to provide health services and manage patient information. With approximately 5 billion mobile phone users globally, opportunities for mobile technologies to play a formal role in health services, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, are increasingly being recognized. mHealth can also support the performance of health care workers by the dissemination of clinical updates, learning materials, and reminders, particularly in underserved rural locations in low- and middle-income countries where community health workers deliver integrated community case management to children sick with diarrhea, pneumonia, and malaria.ObjectiveOur aim was to conduct a thematic review of how mHealth projects have approached the intersection of cellular technology and public health in low- and middle-income countries and identify the promising practices and experiences learned, as well as novel and innovative approaches of how mHealth can support community health workers.MethodsIn this review, 6 themes of mHealth initiatives were examined using information from peer-reviewed journals, websites, and key reports. Primary mHealth technologies reviewed included mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and smartphones, patient monitoring devices, and mobile telemedicine devices. We examined how these tools could be used for education and awareness, data access, and for strengthening health information systems. We also considered how mHealth may support patient monitoring, clinical decision making, and tracking of drugs and supplies. Lessons from mHealth trials and studies were summarized, focusing on low- and middle-income countries and community health workers.ResultsThe review revealed that there are very few formal outcome evaluations of mHealth in low-income countries. Although there is vast documentation of project process evaluations, there are few studies demonstrating an impact on clinical outcomes. There is also a lack of mHealth applications and services operating at scale in low- and middle-income countries. The most commonly documented use of mHealth was 1-way text-message and phone reminders to encourage follow-up appointments, healthy behaviors, and data gathering. Innovative mHealth applications for community health workers include the use of mobile phones as job aides, clinical decision support tools, and for data submission and instant feedback on performance.ConclusionsWith partnerships forming between governments, technologists, non-governmental organizations, academia, and industry, there is great potential to improve health services delivery by using mHealth in low- and middle-income countries. As with many other health improvement projects, a key challenge is moving mHealth approaches from pilot projects to national scalable programs while properly engaging health workers and communities in the process. By harnessing the increasing presence of mobile phones among diverse populations, there ...

No abstract

BackgroundCommunity health workers (CHWs) are an increasingly important component of health systems and programs. Despite the recognized role of supervision in ensuring CHWs are effective, supervision is often weak and under-supported. Little is known about what constitutes adequate supervision and how different supervision strategies influence performance, motivation, and retention.ObjectiveTo determine the impact of supervision strategies used in low- and middle-income countries and discuss implementation and feasibility issues with a focus on CHWs.DesignA search of peer-reviewed, English language articles evaluating health provider supervision strategies was conducted through November 2013. Included articles evaluated the impact of supervision in low- or middle-income countries using a controlled, pre-/post- or observational design. Implementation and feasibility literature included both peer-reviewed and gray literature.ResultsA total of 22 impact papers were identified. Papers were from a range of low- and middle-income countries addressing the supervision of a variety of health care providers. We classified interventions as testing supervision frequency, the supportive/facilitative supervision package, supervision mode (peer, group, and community), tools (self-assessment and checklists), focus (quality assurance/problem solving), and training. Outcomes included coverage, performance, and perception of quality but were not uniform across studies. Evidence suggests that improving supervision quality has a greater impact than increasing frequency of supervision alone. Supportive supervision packages, community monitoring, and quality improvement/problem-solving approaches show the most promise; however, evaluation of all strategies was weak.ConclusionFew supervision strategies have been rigorously tested and data on CHW supervision is particularly sparse. This review highlights the diversity of supervision approaches that policy makers have to choose from and, while choices should be context specific, our findings suggest that high-quality supervision that focuses on supportive approaches, community monitoring, and/or quality assurance/problem solving may be most effective.

Background: Quality improvement collaboratives are widely used to improve health care in both high-income and low and middle-income settings. Teams from multiple health facilities share learning on a given topic and apply a structured cycle of change testing. Previous systematic reviews reported positive effects on target outcomes, but the role of context and mechanism of change is underexplored. This realist-inspired systematic review aims to analyse contextual factors influencing intended outcomes and to identify how quality improvement collaboratives may result in improved adherence to evidence-based practices. Methods: We built an initial conceptual framework to drive our enquiry, focusing on three context domains: health facility setting; project-specific factors; wider organisational and external factors; and two further domains pertaining to mechanisms: intra-organisational and inter-organisational changes. We systematically searched five databases and grey literature for publications relating to quality improvement collaboratives in a healthcare setting and containing data on context or mechanisms. We analysed and reported findings thematically and refined the programme theory. Results: We screened 962 abstracts of which 88 met the inclusion criteria, and we retained 32 for analysis. Adequacy and appropriateness of external support, functionality of quality improvement teams, leadership characteristics and alignment with national systems and priorities may influence outcomes of quality improvement collaboratives, but the strength and quality of the evidence is weak. Participation in quality improvement collaborative activities may improve health professionals' knowledge, problem-solving skills and attitude; teamwork; shared leadership and habits for improvement. Interaction across quality improvement teams may generate normative pressure and opportunities for capacity building and peer recognition. Conclusion: Our review offers a novel programme theory to unpack the complexity of quality improvement collaboratives by exploring the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes. There remains a need for greater use of behaviour change and organisational psychology theory to improve design, adaptation and evaluation of the collaborative quality improvement approach and to test its effectiveness. Further research is needed to determine whether certain contextual factors related to capacity should be a precondition to the quality improvement collaborative approach and to test the emerging programme theory using rigorous research designs.

Despite resurgence in the use of community health workers (CHWs) in the delivery of community case management of childhood illnesses, a paucity of evidence for effective strategies to address key constraints of worker motivation and retention endures. This work reports the results of semi-structured interviews with 15 international stakeholders, selected because of their experiences in CHW program implementation, to elicit their views on strategies that could increase CHW motivation and retention. Data were collected to identify potential interventions that could be tested through a randomized control trial. Suggested interventions were organized into thematic areas; cross-cutting approaches, recruitment, training, supervision, incentives, community involvement and ownership, information and data management, and mHealth. The priority interventions of stakeholders correspond to key areas of the work motivation and CHW literature. Combined, they potentially provide useful insight for programmers engaging in further enquiry into the most locally relevant, acceptable, and evidence-based interventions.