Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Mabayi Child Survival Project-Care Groups_5.3.12

350 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mabayi Child Survival Project-Care Groups_5.3.12

  1. 1. MABAYI CHILD SURVIVAL PROJECT CIBITOKE PROVINCE,   BURUNDIA Promising Approach to Care Groups
  2. 2. • Objective & Key Research Questions• What are the two models• What are the main difference between the models• OR Study design• Discussion of Preliminary Results
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4.  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?
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. Traditional modelIntegrated model
  7. 7. Janvier Niandwi-Community Health Worker
  8. 8. JoselineAkimana, Care GroupVolunteer
  9. 9. 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)
  10. 10.  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
  11. 11.  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
  12. 12.  Husbands Local administration Problems with CHWs Pressure for financial motivation
  13. 13. Anticipating an endline survey will be conducted in February2013

×