A Promising Approach to Care Groups

MABAYI CHILD SURVIVAL

PROJECT CIBITOKE

PROVINCE, BURUNDI

• 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 and nutrition 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 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

Training

Care 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

Traditional Care Group Model

Integrated 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

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 February

2013