Midpoint CHW survey
malaria
MALARIA
As part of the process evaluation, at the midpoint of this study, interviews were conducted with a random sample of 70 CHWs (median of 4 per CU) who were trained to conduct mRDTs (intervention CUs). The primary objective of these interviews was to determine the CHWs’ satisfaction with their role in the malaria project and the feasibility of their continued involvement. Secondary objectives included eliciting the main challenges the CHWs have faced in implementing the study, determining unanticipated burdens on the CHWs’ other activities (including their responsibilities as CHWs outside of the study as well as their non-CHW responsibilities) and identifying changes in the types of services they provide and the recipients of their services.Likert scale questions were also asked, in which the interviewers read a statement aloud and the CHWs were asked to respond how much they agreed with the statement on a 5-point scale (‘strongly agree’, ‘somewhat agree’, ‘neutral’, ‘somewhat disagree’, ‘strongly disagree’). For this analysis, several variables were derived from the survey data. The client score was constructed as a composite score based on four Likert scale questions—whether CHWs agreed that: clients trust the results of a positive mRDT by the CHW, they trust a negative mRDT, they follow the CHW’s advice if the test was positive, they follow advice if the test was negative. A response of strongly agree=2, somewhat agree=1 and neutral/somewhat disagree/strongly disagree=0. If the sum of these four responses was 6 or greater, the score was ‘high’. If less than 6, the score was ‘low’. The survey tool can be found in These same CHWs also performed an mRDT under observation of the study supervision team and were scored on each step using a 20-step checklist that classified steps as relating to safety, accuracy and treatment. The checklist was developed by the study team based on previous research studies to guide training and support supervision. Those who completed at least 17 of 20 steps correctly had a ‘high’ score for mRDT performance and <17 had a ‘low’ score.