Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34526321›Full record

Trial reportBMJ global health2021

A household-based community health worker programme for non-communicable disease, malnutrition, tuberculosis, HIV and maternal health: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial in Neno District, Malawi.

Emily B Wroe, Basimenye Nhlema, Elizabeth L Dunbar, Alexandra V Kulinkina, Chiyembekezo Kachimanga, Moses Aron, Luckson Dullie, Henry Makungwa, Benson Chabwera, Benson Phiri and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Emily B WroePartners In Health, Neno, Malawi emwroe@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9152-9553
Basimenye NhlemaPartners In Health, Neno, Malawi.
Elizabeth L DunbarPartners In Health, Neno, Malawi.
Alexandra V KulinkinaPartners In Health, Neno, Malawi.
Chiyembekezo KachimangaPartners In Health, Neno, Malawi.
Moses AronPartners In Health, Neno, Malawi.
Luckson DulliePartners In Health, Neno, Malawi.
Henry MakungwaPartners In Health, Neno, Malawi.
Benson ChabweraPartners In Health, Neno, Malawi.
Benson PhiriPartners In Health, Neno, Malawi.
Lawrence NazimeraMinistry of Health, Neno, Malawi.
Enoch P L NdaramaMinistry of Health, Neno, Malawi.
Annie MichaelisPartners In Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ryan McBainPartners In Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Celia BrownUniversity of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Daniel PalazuelosDivision of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Richard LilfordInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0634-984X
Samuel I WatsonInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USMinistry of Health · MWPartners In Health · USUniversity of Birmingham · GBSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute · CHUniversity of Warwick · GBUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity health worker (CHW) programmes are a valuable component of primary care in resource-poor settings. The evidence supporting their effectiveness generally shows improvements in disease-specific outcomes relative to the absence of a CHW programme. In this study, we evaluated expanding an existing HIV and tuberculosis (TB) disease-specific CHW programme into a polyvalent, household-based model that subsequently included non-communicable diseases (NCDs), malnutrition and TB screening, as well as family planning and antenatal care (ANC).

methodsWe conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial in Neno District, Malawi. Six clusters of approximately 20 000 residents were formed from the catchment areas of 11 healthcare facilities. The intervention roll-out was staggered every 3 months over 18 months, with CHWs receiving a 5-day foundational training for their new tasks and assigned 20-40 households for monthly (or more frequent) visits.

findingsThe intervention resulted in a decrease of approximately 20% in the rate of patients defaulting from chronic NCD care each month (-0.8 percentage points (pp) (95% credible interval: -2.5 to 0.5)) while maintaining the already low default rates for HIV patients (0.0 pp, 95% CI: -0.6 to 0.5). First trimester ANC attendance increased by approximately 30% (6.5pp (-0.3, 15.8)) and paediatric malnutrition case finding declined by 10% (-0.6 per 1000 (95% CI -2.5 to 0.8)). There were no changes in TB programme outcomes, potentially due to data challenges.

interpretationCHW programmes can be successfully expanded to more comprehensively address health needs in a population, although programmes should be carefully tailored to CHW and health system capacity.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsMalnutritionNoncommunicable DiseasesTuberculosisChildCommunity Health WorkersFemaleHumansMalawiMaternal HealthPregnancychild healthdiabeteshealth services researchHIVmaternal health

Identifiers

PMID34526321
PMCPMC8444244
OpenAlexW3199565358

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.