Promising careers? A critical analysis of a randomised control trial in community health worker recruitment in Zambia

Health by the people, again? The lost lessons of Alma-Ata in a community health worker programme in Zambia

National community health worker (CHW) programmes were central to the vision of primary health care that emerged from the Alma-Ata declaration of 1978. CHWs were identified as agents who could offer basic medical treatment and promote community participation and empowerment. Despite the ambitions of this era, many national CHW programmes were neglected, starved of funding, or discontinued in the decades that followed. These programmes were difficult to sustain in a context of rising debt and structural adjustment, but they also suffered due to poor implementation and a lack of clarity about the role and identity of CHWs. Nevertheless, national CHW programmes have returned to the policy agenda in the past fifteen years and key figures and organisations within global health have begun to argue that they offer a way of strengthening health systems and achieving universal health coverage (UHC). Based on ethnographic research conducted between 2019 and 2020, this article examines a new national CHW programme that has been introduced in Zambia. However, as I show in this article, Zambia's new CHW programme has suffered from many of the same key problems that affected the programmes of the Alma-Ata era: insufficient funding, poor implementation, and a lack of clarity about the role of CHWs. This article shows how these mistakes have been repeated and asks why the lessons of the Alma-Ata era have been lost. Three central problems are identified: national CHW programmes continue to be underfunded and regarded as a "cheap" solution; global health organisations and actors today prioritise technical and quantitative approaches when they design and implement these programmes and therefore overlook the historical experiences and qualitative research of the past thirty years; and, finally, policymakers continue to gloss over the tensions and contradictions within the idea of the "community health worker" itself, creating unclear and unrealistic expectations for CHWs.

Commentary on "Promising careers? A critical analysis of a randomised control trial in community health worker recruitment in Zambia," by James Wintrup

"Promising careers? A critical analysis of a randomised control trial in community health worker recruitment in Zambia" (Wintrup, 2021) raises important questions about the uses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and uses our RCT embedded in Zambia's National Community Health Assistant (CHA) Program (Ashraf et al., 2020a) as a case study to illustrate the pitfalls of the RCT methodology and especially its potential to do harm. This commentary clarifies the misunderstandings at the heart of Wintrup (2021)'s critique.