Calculating the Costs of Implementing Integrated Packages of Community Health Services: Methods, Experiences, and Results From 6 sub-Saharan African Countries.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring access to a package of integrated primary health care services is essential for achieving universal health coverage. In many countries, community health programs are necessary for primary health care service provision, but they are generally underfunded, and countries often lack the necessary evidence on costs and resource requirements. We conducted prospective cost analyses of community health programs in 6 countries in sub-Saharan Africa using the Community Health Planning and Costing Tool. METHODS: The Community Health Planning and Costing Tool is a spreadsheet-based tool designed to cost key programmatic elements of community health services packages, including training, equipment, incentives, supervision, and management. In each country, stakeholders defined a package of community health services and corresponding standard treatment guidelines to estimate normative costs, which were applied to program scale-up targets. The data were entered into the tool, and cost models were prepared for different geographical and service utilization scenarios. The results were reviewed and validated with the governments, implementing partners, and expert panels. Additional scale-up scenarios were modeled, taking into account probable constraints to increasing community health service provision and potential funding limitations. RESULTS: The services and scope of community health service packages varied by country, depending on contextual factors and determined health priorities. The package costs also varied significantly depending on the size and contents of the service package, the service delivery approach, the remuneration of the community health workers, and the cost of medicines and supplies. CONCLUSIONS: Community health programs and service packages are different in every country and change over time as they evolve. They should be routinely costed as an integral part of the planning and budgeting process and to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated for their effective and efficient implementation.

Stock-outs of essential medicines among community health workers (CHWs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): a systematic literature review of the extent, reasons, and consequences.

BACKGROUND: This paper explores the extent of community-level stock-out of essential medicines among community health workers (CHWs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and identifies the reasons for and consequences of essential medicine stock-outs. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five electronic databases were searched with a prespecified strategy and the grey literature examined, January 2006-March 2021. Papers containing information on (1) the percentage of CHWs stocked out or (2) reasons for stock-outs along the supply chain and consequences of stock-out were included and appraised for risk of bias. Outcomes were quantitative data on the extent of stock-out, summarized using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data regarding reasons for and consequences of stock-outs, analyzed using thematic content analysis and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Two reviewers screened 1083 records; 78 evaluations were included. Over the last 15 years, CHWs experienced stock-outs of essential medicines nearly one third of the time and at a significantly (p < 0.01) higher rate than the health centers to which they are affiliated (28.93% [CI 95%: 28.79-29.07] vs 9.17% [CI 95%: 8.64-9.70], respectively). A comparison of the period 2006-2015 and 2016-2021 showed a significant (p < 0.01) increase in CHW stock-out level from 26.36% [CI 95%: 26.22-26.50] to 48.65% [CI 95%: 48.02-49.28] while that of health centers increased from 7.79% [95% CI 7.16-8.42] to 14.28% [95% CI 11.22-17.34]. Distribution barriers were the most cited reasons for stock-outs. Ultimately, patients were the most affected: stock-outs resulted in out-of-pocket expenses to buy unavailable medicines, poor adherence to medicine regimes, dissatisfaction, and low service utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Community-level stock-out of essential medicines constitutes a serious threat to achieving universal health coverage and equitable improvement of health outcomes. This paper suggests stock-outs are getting worse, and that there are particular barriers at the last mile. There is an urgent need to address the health and non-health system constraints that prevent the essential medicines procured for LMICs by international and national stakeholders from reaching the people who need them the most.

Community health workers in humanitarian settings: Scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for greater understanding of experiences implementing community-based primary health care in humanitarian settings and of the adjustments needed to ensure continuation of essential services and utilization of services by the population, and to contribute to effective emergency response. We reviewed the evidence base on community health workers (CHWs) in humanitarian settings, with the goal of improving delivery of essential services to the most vulnerable populations. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of published and grey literature related to health and nutrition services provided by CHWs in humanitarian settings. Extracted data from retained documents were analyzed inductively for key themes. RESULTS: Of 3709 documents screened, 219 were included in the review. Key findings from the literature include: 1) CHWs were often able to continue providing services during acute and protracted crises, including prolonged periods of conflict and insecurity and during population displacement. 2) CHWs carried out critical emergency response activities during acute crises. 3) Flexible funding facilitated transitions between development and humanitarian programming. 4) Communities that did not have a locally-resident CHW experienced reduced access to services when travel was limited. 5) Community selection of CHWs and engagement of respected local leaders were crucial for community trust and acceptance and high utilization of services. 6) Selection of local supervisors and use of mobile phones facilitated continued supervision. 7) Actions taken to maintain supplies included creating parallel supply chains, providing buffer stocks to CHWs, and storing commodities in decentralized locations. 8) When travel was restricted, reporting and data collection were continued using mobile phones and use of local data collectors. 9) CHWs and supervisors faced security threats and psychological trauma as a result of their work. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve impact, policy makers and program implementers will have to address the bottlenecks to CHW service delivery common in stable low-income settings as well as the additional challenges unique to humanitarian settings. Future interventions should take into account the lessons learned from years of experience with implementation of community-based primary health care in humanitarian settings. There is also a need for rigorous assessments of community-based primary health care interventions in humanitarian settings.

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.

Learning for Universal Health Coverage.

The journey to universal health coverage (UHC) is full of challenges, which to a great extent are specific to each country. 'Learning for UHC' is a central component of countries' health system strengthening agendas. Our group has been engaged for a decade in facilitating collective learning for UHC through a range of modalities at global, regional and national levels. We present some of our experience and draw lessons for countries and international actors interested in strengthening national systemic learning capacities for UHC. The main lesson is that with appropriate collective intelligence processes, digital tools and facilitation capacities, countries and international agencies can mobilise the many actors with knowledge relevant to the design, implementation and evaluation of UHC policies. However, really building learning health systems will take more time and commitment. Each country will have to invest substantively in developing its specific learning systemic capacities, with an active programme of work addressing supportive leadership, organisational culture and knowledge management processes.