Working Group Community Child Health 2 _5.3.12

A Promising Approach to Care

Groups

MABAYI CHILD SURVIVAL PROJECT CIBITOKE

PROVINCE, BURUNDI

Overview• Objective & Key Research

Questions

• What are the two models

• What are the main difference between the models

• OR Study design

• Discussion of Preliminary Results

Objective 

To test the effectiveness and sustainability of an Integrated Care Group Model to improve both knowledge

and practice of key child health and nutrition behaviors as compared to the Traditional Care Group Model

Key Research Questions

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 Model

Main Difference Between Models

Traditional Model Integrated Model

Supervision• Animators (Supervisors)-paid,

NGO staff: supervise Promoters

• Health Promoters-paid, NGO staff: motivate and supervise Care Group Volunteers which includes CHWs

• MOH Staff: support the CHWs• Animators (paid NGO staff):

provide oversight, supervision and follow-up at all levels

• Each Community Health Worker (CHW): motivates and supervises 2 Care Groups

TrainingCare Group Volunteers and CHWs trained by Health Promoters

CHWs responsible for training Care Group volunteers and facilitating Care Groups

CHWs are trained by MOH staff

Integrated model

Traditional model

Janvier Niandwi- Community Health Worker

Joseline Akimana, Care Group Volunteer

OR Study DesignTraditional Care

Group ModelIntegrated Care Group Model

Comparisons

Collines of comparable population

Support& Supervision

Frequency of Care Group Training

13 Collines5,344 HH51 Care Groups

1 Animator (Supervisor)

6 Promoters (1 per 9 CG)

Twice per month

Trained by Promoter

16 Collines5,134 HH59 Care Groups

1 Animator/TPS (MOH Staff)

Twice per month

CHWs trained by MOH

Knowledge & practices of key child health & nutrition behaviors among caregivers of children 0-23 months.

Functionality

Functionality

CHW roles with CG Participants Trainers (1 or 2 per CG)

Sustainability

Testimony from the field

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

Preliminary Results

Indicator 1

Indicator 2

Indicator 3

Indicator 4

Indicator 5

Summary of Results

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

Issues/Challenges/Discussion Points

Husbands Local

administration Problems with

CHWs Pressure for

financial motivation

Stayed tuned….

Anticipating an endline survey will be conducted in February 2013