Community-directed health (CDH) workers enhance the performance and sustainability of CDH programmes: experience from ivermectin distribution in Uganda

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The performance and ‘drop-out’ rates of ivermectin (Mectizan®) distributors in the Ugandan programme for community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) were investigated and related to the manner in which the distributors were recruited. Distributors, from randomly selected communities endemic for onchocerciasis in seven of the 10 affected districts, were interviewed. Questionnaires were initially completed for 296 communities (in which ivermectin had been distributed in 1998 but not in 1999) and then extended to another 310 communities (in which ivermectin had been distributed in both study years). Discussions were also held with some other community members, in participatory evaluation meetings (PEM) in 14 communities from four districts. Despite the CDTI being labelled as ‘community-directed’, the first round of interviews and questionnaires revealed that there were in fact three categories of distributors: 322 (69.4%) of those questioned had been selected by community members and were therefore truly community-directed health workers (CDHW) but 101 (22%) were community-based health workers appointed by the leaders of the local council (CBHW-LC) and 41 (9%) were self-appointed volunteers (CBHW-SA). During 1999, only the CDHW received good community support; they still helped to mobilise and educate their community members and advocate CDTI, and 98% of them agreed that they would distribute ivermectin during the following year. In contrast, many of the CBHW-LC were neither supported nor appreciated by the community members. Presumably in consequence, many of the CBHW-LC did not help to mobilise or educate their community members in 1999, nor did they advocate CDTI. Almost all (95%) of the CBHW-LC said that they would not be available to distribute in the following year, and were therefore regarded as total ‘drop-outs’ from the CDTI. The CBHW-SA were better supported by community members than were the CBHW-LC, they did more to advocate the CDTI, and 93% reported that they would distribute ivermectin during the following year. The ‘drop-out’ rates for 1999 were < 2% for the CDHW, 7% for the CBHW-SA, and 95% for the CBHW-LC. The results also indicated that the CBHW-SA were not as reliable as the CDHW. Similar results were obtained from the second round of questionnaires, in which 224 (73%) of the interviewees were CDHW, 57 (18%) were CBHW-LC and 28 (9%) were CBHW-SA. The results of the PEM showed that the CDHW, who mainly came from the same kinship groups as the people who selected them, were likely to achieve higher ivermectin coverage within a week than the other categories of distributors. It is clear that, for the optimum performance and sustainability of the CDTI, the distributors used should be CDHW selected by their own community members.