• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Working Group Community Child Health 2 _5.3.12
 

Working Group Community Child Health 2 _5.3.12

on

  • 336 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
336
Views on SlideShare
336
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 2008 CSP Innovations Award
  • reduce the dependence of Care Group implementation on full-time, paid NGO staff increasing integration with the local Ministry of Health (MOH) structure
  • Groups of 10-15 women volunteers-elected by communityMeeting twice per months to be trained on health education/promotion topicsCollect information on vital events at the hhVolunteer is responsible for 10-15 HHs
  • Streamlined into the MoHSystemAccomplished via task shiftingCHV serve as relays for CHWsincrease the feasibility of the Care Group Model to be scaled up and sustained, particularly by national Ministries of Health
  • The aim is at the end of the program TPS will continue the role played by AnimatorsTask shifting element introduced in the integrated model
  • Traditional care group members very keen to continue after project finished.
  • Building relationshipsEase of information sharingImproved linkage between health center and communities

Working Group Community Child Health 2 _5.3.12 Working Group Community Child Health 2 _5.3.12 Presentation Transcript

  • MABAYI CHILD SURVIVAL PROJECT CIBITOKE PROVINCE,   BURUNDIA Promising Approach to Care Groups
  • • Objective & Key Research Questions• What are the two models• What are the main difference between the models• OR Study design• Discussion of Preliminary Results
  • To test the effectiveness and sustainability of an Integrated Care Group Model to improve both knowledge and practice of key child health andnutrition behaviors as compared to the Traditional Care Group Model
  •  Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same improvement in the knowledge of key child health and nutrition behaviors among caregivers of children 0-23 months as the Traditional Care Group Model? Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same improvement in the practice of key child health and nutrition behaviors among caregivers of children 0-23 months as the Traditional Care Group Model? Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same level of Care Group functionality as the Traditional Care Group Model? Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same level of Care Group sustainability as the Traditional Care Group Model?
  • Traditional Model Integrated ModelSupervision • MOH Staff: support the CHWs• Animators (Supervisors)-paid, NGO • Animators (paid NGO staff): provide staff: supervise Promoters oversight, supervision and follow-up at all levels• Health Promoters-paid, NGO staff: motivate and supervise Care Group • Each Community Health Worker Volunteers which includes CHWs (CHW): motivates and supervises 2 Care GroupsTraining CHWs responsible for training CareCare Group Volunteers and CHWs Group volunteers and facilitating Caretrained by Health Promoters Groups CHWs are trained by MOH staff
  • Traditional modelIntegrated model
  • Janvier Niandwi-Community Health Worker
  • JoselineAkimana, Care GroupVolunteer
  • Traditional Care Integrated Care Comparisons Group Model Group ModelCollines of 13 Collines 16 Collines Knowledge & practices ofcomparable 5,344 HH 5,134 HH key child health & nutritionpopulation 51 Care Groups 59 Care Groups behaviors among caregivers of children 0-23 months.Support& 1 Animator 1 Animator/TPS FunctionalitySupervision (Supervisor) (MOH Staff) 6 Promoters (1 per 9 CG)Frequency of Care Twice per month Twice per month FunctionalityGroup Training Trained by Promoter CHWs trained by MOHCHW roles with CG Participants Trainers Sustainability (1 or 2 per CG)
  •  13 out of 14 Titulaires interviewed commented on the strong working relationship with CHWs that has developed as a direct result of the MCSP CHWs and CGVs commented on how easily information is spread throughout their communities as a result of the Care Group network of volunteers Health center staff stated that information between the health center team and the communities now passes quickly and directly to those concerned
  •  Both models achieving high levels of efficiency In general traditional group performing more efficiently Not unexpected due to presence of Promoters Greatest difference in percentage of households receiving at least one visit per month Possible trade off between efficiency and potential sustainability
  •  Husbands Local administration Problems with CHWs Pressure for financial motivation
  • Anticipating an endline survey will be conducted in February2013