Determining whether Community Health Workers are ‘Deployment Ready’ Using Standard Setting

Background: Community Health Workers (CHWs) provide basic health screening and advice to members of their own communities. Although CHWs are trained, no CHW programmes have used a formal method to identify the level of achievement on post-training assessments that distinguishes “safe” from “unsafe”....

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Celia Taylor, Basimenye Nhlema, Emily Wroe, Moses Aron, Henry Makungwa, Elizabeth L Dunbar
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Ubiquity Press 2018
Materias:	Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/4a60e11b424140ad97dd14c97a0701a4
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:4a60e11b424140ad97dd14c97a0701a4
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:4a60e11b424140ad97dd14c97a0701a42021-12-02T07:29:44ZDetermining whether Community Health Workers are ‘Deployment Ready’ Using Standard Setting2214-999610.29024/aogh.2369https://doaj.org/article/4a60e11b424140ad97dd14c97a0701a42018-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/2369https://doaj.org/toc/2214-9996Background: Community Health Workers (CHWs) provide basic health screening and advice to members of their own communities. Although CHWs are trained, no CHW programmes have used a formal method to identify the level of achievement on post-training assessments that distinguishes “safe” from “unsafe”. Objectives: The aim of this study was to use Ebel method of standard setting for a post-training written knowledge assessment for CHWs in Neno, Malawi. Methods: 12 participants agreed the definitions of a “just-deployment ready” and an “ideal” CHW. Participants rated the importance and difficulty of each question on a three-point scale and also indicated the proportion of “just-deployment ready” CHWs expected to answer each of the nine question types correctly. Mean scores were used to determine the passing standard, which was reduced by one standard error of measurement (SEM) as this was the first time any passing standard had been employed. The level of agreement across participants’ ratings of importance and difficulty was calculated using Krippendorf’s alpha. The assessment results from the first cohort of CHW trainees were analysed using classical test theory. Findings: There was poor agreement between participants on item ratings of both importance and difficulty (Krippendorf’s alphas of 0.064 and 0.074 respectively). The pass mark applied to the assessment, following adjustment using the SEM, was 53.3%. Based on this pass mark, 68% of 129 CHW trainees were ‘clear passes’, 11% ‘borderline passes’, 9% ‘borderline fails’ and 12% ‘clear fails’. Conclusions: Determining whether a CHW is deployment-ready is an important, but difficult exercise, as evidenced by a lack of agreement regarding question importance and difficulty. Future exercises should allow more time for training, discussion and modification of ratings. Based on the assessment, most CHWs trained could be considered deployment-ready, but following-up their performance in the field will be vital to validate the pass mark set.Celia TaylorBasimenye NhlemaEmily WroeMoses AronHenry MakungwaElizabeth L DunbarUbiquity PressarticleInfectious and parasitic diseasesRC109-216Public aspects of medicineRA1-1270ENAnnals of Global Health, Vol 84, Iss 4 (2018)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270
spellingShingle	Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270 Celia Taylor Basimenye Nhlema Emily Wroe Moses Aron Henry Makungwa Elizabeth L Dunbar Determining whether Community Health Workers are ‘Deployment Ready’ Using Standard Setting
description	Background: Community Health Workers (CHWs) provide basic health screening and advice to members of their own communities. Although CHWs are trained, no CHW programmes have used a formal method to identify the level of achievement on post-training assessments that distinguishes “safe” from “unsafe”. Objectives: The aim of this study was to use Ebel method of standard setting for a post-training written knowledge assessment for CHWs in Neno, Malawi. Methods: 12 participants agreed the definitions of a “just-deployment ready” and an “ideal” CHW. Participants rated the importance and difficulty of each question on a three-point scale and also indicated the proportion of “just-deployment ready” CHWs expected to answer each of the nine question types correctly. Mean scores were used to determine the passing standard, which was reduced by one standard error of measurement (SEM) as this was the first time any passing standard had been employed. The level of agreement across participants’ ratings of importance and difficulty was calculated using Krippendorf’s alpha. The assessment results from the first cohort of CHW trainees were analysed using classical test theory. Findings: There was poor agreement between participants on item ratings of both importance and difficulty (Krippendorf’s alphas of 0.064 and 0.074 respectively). The pass mark applied to the assessment, following adjustment using the SEM, was 53.3%. Based on this pass mark, 68% of 129 CHW trainees were ‘clear passes’, 11% ‘borderline passes’, 9% ‘borderline fails’ and 12% ‘clear fails’. Conclusions: Determining whether a CHW is deployment-ready is an important, but difficult exercise, as evidenced by a lack of agreement regarding question importance and difficulty. Future exercises should allow more time for training, discussion and modification of ratings. Based on the assessment, most CHWs trained could be considered deployment-ready, but following-up their performance in the field will be vital to validate the pass mark set.
format	article
author	Celia Taylor Basimenye Nhlema Emily Wroe Moses Aron Henry Makungwa Elizabeth L Dunbar
author_facet	Celia Taylor Basimenye Nhlema Emily Wroe Moses Aron Henry Makungwa Elizabeth L Dunbar
author_sort	Celia Taylor
title	Determining whether Community Health Workers are ‘Deployment Ready’ Using Standard Setting
title_short	Determining whether Community Health Workers are ‘Deployment Ready’ Using Standard Setting
title_full	Determining whether Community Health Workers are ‘Deployment Ready’ Using Standard Setting
title_fullStr	Determining whether Community Health Workers are ‘Deployment Ready’ Using Standard Setting
title_full_unstemmed	Determining whether Community Health Workers are ‘Deployment Ready’ Using Standard Setting
title_sort	determining whether community health workers are ‘deployment ready’ using standard setting
publisher	Ubiquity Press
publishDate	2018
url	https://doaj.org/article/4a60e11b424140ad97dd14c97a0701a4
work_keys_str_mv	AT celiataylor determiningwhethercommunityhealthworkersaredeploymentreadyusingstandardsetting AT basimenyenhlema determiningwhethercommunityhealthworkersaredeploymentreadyusingstandardsetting AT emilywroe determiningwhethercommunityhealthworkersaredeploymentreadyusingstandardsetting AT mosesaron determiningwhethercommunityhealthworkersaredeploymentreadyusingstandardsetting AT henrymakungwa determiningwhethercommunityhealthworkersaredeploymentreadyusingstandardsetting AT elizabethldunbar determiningwhethercommunityhealthworkersaredeploymentreadyusingstandardsetting
_version_	1718399398332858368

Determining whether Community Health Workers are ‘Deployment Ready’ Using Standard Setting

Ejemplares similares