Table 3.
Differences in coordination, job confidence and supervision reported by Anganwadi Workers (AWW) and Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHA) from control vs intervention villages after implementation (July-August, 2014) of the ICT-CCS intervention in Saharsa, Bihar*
| AWW† |
ASHA† |
P-value for difference between AWW and ASHA ‡ |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Control (n = 134) |
Intervention (n = 153) |
P-value |
Control (n = 122) |
Intervention (n = 163) |
P-value |
||
|
Coordination between ASHAs and AWWs: | |||||||
| Have you asked an opposite-cadre FLW to conduct a home visit if you were unable to, in the last 30 days) (%) |
42 |
51 |
0.17 |
48 |
41 |
0.17 |
0.04 |
| Has an opposite-cadre FLW asked you to conduct a home visit if they were unable to, in the last 30 days (%) |
35 |
47 |
0.04 |
47 |
47 |
0.91 |
0.08 |
| Number of home visits conducted jointly with opposite-cadre FLW, in the past 7 days (mean) |
1.1 |
1.2 |
0.57 |
1.1 |
1.9 |
<0.01 |
0.14 |
| Met with opposite-cadre FLW to talk about work or home visits in the past 7 days (%) |
66 |
80 |
0.012 |
63 |
62 |
0.84 |
0.07 |
|
Job confidence: | |||||||
| Feels she has all skills needed for job (%) |
28 |
35 |
0.15 |
28 |
43 |
<0.01 |
0.37 |
|
FLW feels she needs skills related to: | |||||||
| How to plan home visits (%) |
43 |
28 |
0.03 |
48 |
38 |
0.17 |
0.56 |
| How to maintain registers (%) |
43 |
26 |
0.06 |
40 |
30 |
0.13 |
0.52 |
| Maternal and newborn health issues (%) |
61 |
62 |
0.92 |
64 |
54 |
0.20 |
0.32 |
| How to communicate better with mothers and families (%) |
40 |
55 |
0.07 |
53 |
51 |
0.82 |
0.15 |
|
Supervision: | |||||||
| Met with supervisor in past 3 months outside sub-center meeting (%) |
99 |
99 |
0.94 |
97 |
97 |
0.79 |
0.98 |
| Number of times met with supervisor in past 3 months outside sub-center meeting (mean) |
3.5 |
3.6 |
0.88 |
3.9 |
4.0 |
0.70 |
0.90 |
| Supervisor always available by phone or in person when FLW needs to reach her (vs sometimes or never) (%) |
77 |
79 |
0.59 |
80 |
83 |
0.41 |
0.83 |
|
During recent visits, supervisor, most of the time: | |||||||
| Brought outstanding visits to the FLW’s attention (%) |
78 |
73 |
0.81 |
75 |
73 |
0.20 |
0.48 |
| Gave the FLW guidance on what information to give to households (%) |
52 |
55 |
0.67 |
56 |
58 |
0.82 |
0.90 |
| Gave the FLW guidance on how to communicate effectively with households (%) |
41 |
47 |
0.20 |
38 |
48 |
0.16 |
0.72 |
| Talked to the households the FLW was finding difficult to convince (%) |
35 |
43 |
0.19 |
43 |
43 |
0.97 |
0.31 |
| Helped FLW coordinate with her counterpart (%) | 50 | 55 | 0.26 | 53 | 54 | 0.87 | 0.58 |
FLW – Frontline workers, AWW – Anganwadi Workers, ASHA – Accredited Social Health Activists, ICT-CCS – Information Communication Technology-Continuum of Care Service,
*Survey-weighted percentages and counts are reported, to account for the survey design. Regression models were performed that accounted for village as the primary sampling unit and sub-center as the primary stratum within the sampling unit, and with proportional sampling weights at the FLW level. Logistic regression models were conducted for binary outcomes and linear regressions for count variables.
†Separate regression models were conducted for each outcome, for each cadre (AWW, ASHA); P-values reflect comparisons of the intervention and control groups, for each cadre.
‡The P-values reflect whether treatment effects for each outcome variable differed by cadre and were derived from the following models. To derive these P values, we conducted a separate regression model that included all FLWs. These models each contained a term representing cadre (AWW or ASHA), a term representing treatment (intervention or control), and an interaction of these two terms; the P values are for these interaction terms and thus reflect whether treatment effects differed by cadre.