Search

Background: While integral to decentralising health reforms, Community Health Workers (CHWs) in South Africa experience many challenges. During COVID-19, CHW roles changed rapidly, shifting from communities to clinics. In the contexts of new roles and re-engineered primary healthcare (PHC), the objectives were to: (a) implement a training intervention to support local decision-making capability of CHWs; and (b) assess learning and impacts from the perspectives of CHWs. Methods: CHWs from three rural villages (n = 9) were trained in rapid Participatory Action Research (PAR) with peers and community stakeholders (n = 33). Training equipped CHWs with tools and techniques to convene community groups, raise and/or respond to local health concerns, understand concerns from different perspectives, and facilitate action in communities and public services. CHWs’ perspectives before and after the intervention were gained through semi-structured interviews. Data were collected and analysed using the decision space framework to understand local actors’ power to affect devolved decision-making. Results: CHWs demonstrated significant resilience and commitment in the face of COVID-19. They experienced multiple, intersecting challenges including: limited financial, logistical and health systems support, poor role clarity, precarious employment, low and no pay, unstable organisational capacity, fragile accountability mechanisms and belittling treatment in clinics. Together, these restricted decision space and were seen to reflect a low valuing of the cadre in the system. CHWs saw the training as a welcome opportunity to assert themselves as a recognised cadre. Regular, spaces for dialogue and mutual learning supported CHWs to gain tools and skills to rework their agency in more empowered ways. The training improved management capacity, capabilities for dialogue, which expanded role clarity, and strengthened community mobilisation, facilitation and analysis skills. Development of pub, On behalf of the Verbal Autopsy with Participatory Action Research (VAPAR)/Wits/Mpumalanga Department of Health Learning Platform.Correction: Lucia D’Ambruoso, Nana Akua Abruquah, Denny Mabetha, Maria van der Merwe, Gerhard Goosen, Jerry Sigudla, Sophie Witter on behalf of the Verbal Autopsy with Participatory Action Research (VAPAR)/Wits/Mpumalanga Department of Health Learning Platform. Human Resources for Health. 2023;21;1, Article number 78. DOI: 10.1186/s12960-023-00863-z

BACKGROUND: Despite international evidence supporting community participation in health for improved health outcomes and more responsive and equitable health systems there is little practical evidence on how to do this. This work sought to understand the process involved in collective implementation of a health-related local action plan developed by multiple stakeholders. METHODS: Communities, government departments and non-government stakeholders convened in three iterative phases of a participatory action research (PAR) learning cycle. Stakeholders were involved in problem identification, development, and implementation of a local action plan, reflection on action, and reiteration of the process. Participants engaged in reflective exercises, exploring how factors such as power and interest impacted success or failure. RESULTS: The local action plan was partially successful, with three out of seven action items achieved. High levels of both power and interest were key factors in the achievement of action items. For the achieved items, stakeholders reported that continuous interactions with one another created a shift in both power and interest through ownership of implementation processes. Participants who possessed significant power and influence were able to leverage resources and connections to overcome obstacles and barriers to progress the plan. Lack of financial support, shifting priorities and insufficient buy-in from stakeholders hindered implementation. CONCLUSION: The process offered new ways of thinking and stakeholders were supported to generate local evidence for action and learning. The process also enabled exploration of how different stakeholders with different levels of power and interest coalesce to design, plan, and act on evidence. Creation of safe spaces was achievable, meanwhile changing stakeholders' level of power and interest was possible but challenging. This study suggests that when researchers, service providers and communities are conne