Why do strategies to strengthen primary health care succeed in some places and fail in others? Exploring local variation in the effectiveness of a community health worker managed digital health intervention in rural India. (26th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schierhout, Gill; Praveen, Devarsetty; Patel, Bindu; Li, Qiang; Mogulluru, Kishor; Ameer, Mohammed Abdul; Patel, Anushka; Clifford, Gari D; Joshi, Rohina; Heritier, Stephane; Maulik, Pallab; Peiris, David
• Is Part Of: BMJ global health. Volume 6(2021)Supplement 5
• Publication Date: 2021-07-26
• Subjects: health systems evaluation -- health services research -- cluster randomized trial -- other study design -- prevention strategies; World health -- Periodicals; 362.105
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2059-7908

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Digital health interventions (DHIs) have huge potential as support modalities to identify and manage cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in resource-constrained settings, but studies assessing them show modest effects. This study aims to identify variation in outcomes and implementation of SMARTHealth India, a cluster randomised trial of an ASHA-managed digitally enabled primary healthcare (PHC) service strengthening strategy for CVD risk management, and to explain how and in what contexts the intervention was effective. Methods: We analysed trial outcome and implementation data for 18 PHC centres and collected qualitative data via focus groups with ASHAs (n=14) and interviews with ASHAs, PHC facility doctors and fieldteam mangers (n=12) Drawing on principles of realist evaluation and an explanatory mixed-methods design we developed mechanism-based explanations for observed outcomes. Results: There was substantial between-cluster variation in the primary outcome (overall: I 2 =62.4%, p<=0.001). The observed heterogeneity in trial outcomes was not attributable to any single factor. Key mechanisms for intervention effectiveness were community trust and acceptability of doctors' and ASHAs' new roles, and risk awareness. Enabling local contexts were seen to evolve over time and in response to the intervention. These included obtaining legitimacy for ASHAs' new roles from trusted providers of curative care; ASHAs' connections to community and to qualified providers; their responsiveness to community needs; and the accessibility, quality and appropriateness of care provided by higher level medical providers, including those outside of the implementing (public) subsystem. Conclusion: Local contextual factors were significant influences on the effectiveness of this DHI-enabled PHC service strategy intervention. Local adaptions need to be planned for, monitored and responded to over time. By identifying plausible explanations for variation in outcomes between clusters, we identify potential strategies to strengthen such interventions.