Title |
Evaluating health worker performance in Benin using the simulated client method with real children
|
---|---|
Published in |
Implementation Science, October 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-95 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Alexander K Rowe, Faustin Onikpo, Marcel Lama, Michael S Deming |
Abstract |
The simulated client (SC) method for evaluating health worker performance utilizes surveyors who pose as patients to make surreptitious observations during consultations. Compared to conspicuous observation (CO) by surveyors, which is commonly done in developing countries, SC data better reflect usual health worker practices. This information is important because CO can cause performance to be better than usual. Despite this advantage of SCs, the method's full potential has not been realized for evaluating performance for pediatric illnesses because real children have not been utilized as SCs. Previous SC studies used scenarios of ill children that were not actually brought to health workers. During a trial that evaluated a quality improvement intervention in Benin (the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness [IMCI] strategy), we conducted an SC survey with adult caretakers as surveyors and real children to evaluate the feasibility of this approach and used the results to assess the validity of CO. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Japan | 1 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
Bangladesh | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 76 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 17 | 22% |
Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 6% |
Other | 21 | 27% |
Unknown | 14 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 33% |
Social Sciences | 9 | 11% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 5% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
Other | 9 | 11% |
Unknown | 19 | 24% |