[Community services and quality of life: a study of the impact in a remote region]

Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases

BACKGROUND

Lay health workers (LHWs) are widely used to provide care for a broad range of health issues. Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of LHW interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of LHW interventions in primary and community health care on maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the current version of this review we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (including citations uploaded from the EPOC and the CCRG registers) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1 Online) (searched 18 February 2009); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to February Week 1 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid (February 13 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2009 Week 05) (searched 18 February 2009); AMED, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 19 February 2009); British Nursing Index and Archive, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); CINAHL, Ebsco 1981 to present (searched 07 February 2010); POPLINE (searched 25 February 2009); WHOLIS (searched 16 April 2009); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (1975 to present) (searched 10 August 2006 and 10 February 2010). We also searched the reference lists of all included papers and relevant reviews, and contacted study authors and researchers in the field for additional papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any intervention delivered by LHWs (paid or voluntary) in primary or community health care and intended to improve maternal or child health or the management of infectious diseases. A 'lay health worker' was defined as any health worker carrying out functions related to healthcare delivery, trained in some way in the context of the intervention, and having no formal professional or paraprofessional certificate or tertiary education degree. There were no restrictions on care recipients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed risk of bias. Studies that compared broadly similar types of interventions were grouped together. Where feasible, the study results were combined and an overall estimate of effect obtained.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. These showed considerable diversity in the targeted health issue and the aims, content, and outcomes of interventions. The majority were conducted in high income countries (n = 55) but many of these focused on low income and minority populations. The diversity of included studies limited meta-analysis to outcomes for four study groups. These analyses found evidence of moderate quality of the effectiveness of LHWs in promoting immunisation childhood uptake (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.37; P = 0.0004); promoting initiation of breastfeeding (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61; P < 0.00001), any breastfeeding (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.39; P = 0.0004), and exclusive breastfeeding (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.74 to 4.44; P <0.0001); and improving pulmonary TB cure rates (RR 1.22 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.31) P <0.0001), when compared to usual care. There was moderate quality evidence that LHW support had little or no effect on TB preventive treatment completion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; P = 0.99). There was also low quality evidence that LHWs may reduce child morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and child (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03; P = 0.07) and neonatal (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; P = 0.07) mortality, and increase the likelihood of seeking care for childhood illness (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.05; P = 0.20). For other health issues, the evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions regarding effectiveness, or to enable the identification of specific LHW training or intervention strategies likely to be most effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LHWs provide promising benefits in promoting immunisation uptake and breastfeeding, improving TB treatment outcomes, and reducing child morbidity and mortality when compared to usual care. For other health issues, evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the effects of LHWs.

Quality of life among Norwegians with chronic mental health problems living in the community versus the general population

We used the Quality of Life Scale to assess quality of life among 107 Norwegians with chronic mental health problems (MHP) from the community health care system versus 1893 general population adults. The groups differed in quality of life, including broader life domains. Age and quality of life were more strongly positively correlated in the MHP group than in the general population. Mental symptoms (measured by the Symptom Checklist-90 Revised) and quality of life were strongly negatively correlated in the MHP group. Services for people with chronic MHP should focus on enhancing quality of life and on its role as an outcome variable.

Lay health workers in primary and community health care

BACKGROUND

Lay health workers (LHWs) are widely used to provide care for a broad range of health issues. However, little is known about the effectiveness of LHW interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of LHW interventions in primary and community health care on health care behaviours, patients' health and wellbeing, and patients' satisfaction with care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care and Consumers and Communication specialised registers (to August 2001); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (to August 2001); MEDLINE (1966- August 2001); EMBASE (1966-August 2001); Science Citations (to August 2001); CINAHL (1966-June 2001); Healthstar (1975-2000); AMED (1966-August 2001); the Leeds Health Education Effectiveness Database and the reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any intervention delivered by LHWs (paid or voluntary) in primary or community health care and intended to promote health, manage illness or provide support to patients. A 'lay health worker' was defined as any health worker carrying out functions related to health care delivery; trained in some way in the context of the intervention; and having no formal professional or paraprofessional certificated or degreed tertiary education. There were no restrictions on the types of consumers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data onto a standard form and assessed study quality. Studies that compared broadly similar types of interventions were grouped together. Where feasible, the results of included studies were combined and an estimate of effect obtained.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty three studies met the inclusion criteria, involving more than 210,110 consumers. These showed considerable diversity in the targeted health issue and the aims, content and outcomes of interventions. Most were conducted in high income countries (n=35), but nearly half of these focused on low income and minority populations (n=15). Study diversity limited meta-analysis to outcomes for five subgroups (n=15 studies) (LHW interventions to promote the uptake of breast cancer screening, immunisation and breastfeeding promotion [before two weeks and between two weeks and six months post partum] and to improve diagnosis and treatment for selected infectious diseases). Promising benefits in comparison with usual care were shown for LHW interventions to promote immunisation uptake in children and adults (RR=1.30 [95% CI 1.14, 1.48] p=0.0001) and LHW interventions to improve outcomes for selected infectious diseases (RR=0.74 [95% CI 0.58, 0.93) p=0.01). LHWs also appear promising for breastfeeding promotion. They appear to have a small effect in promoting breast cancer screening uptake when compared with usual care. For the remaining subgroups (n=29 studies), the outcomes were too diverse to allow statistical pooling. We can therefore draw no general conclusions on the effectiveness of these subgroups of interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LHWs show promising benefits in promoting immunisation uptake and improving outcomes for acute respiratory infections and malaria, when compared to usual care. For other health issues, evidence is insufficient to justify recommendations for policy and practice. There is also insufficient evidence to assess which LHW training or intervention strategies are likely to be most effective. Further research is needed in these areas.

Components of social support and quality of life in severely mentally ill, low income individuals and a general population group

Satisfaction with social support and quality of life (QOL) were assessed for 60 psychiatric patients, 79 welfare recipients and 266 people of the general population using the Social Provisions Scale (SPS) and the Satisfaction with Life Domains Scale (SLDS). Psychiatric patients reported less satisfaction than the general population on all components of social support. They have a comparable level of satisfaction with welfare recipients on most of the components, with the exception of emotional integration and opportunity for nurturance. However, patients satisfaction with QOL was quite similar to the general population, although higher than welfare recipients on some dimensions. Their lower satisfaction with the personal-intimate dimension suggest deficiencies in social support. All components of social support were consistently related to QOL in the general population. Attachment and reassurance of worth was significant for psychiatric patients but only attachment was related to QOL for the welfare recipients group. The pairing of SPS and SLDS scales seem to be good instruments for discriminating the majority of psychiatric patients.

Quality of life of severely mentally ill individuals: a comparative study

This survey compared the subjective quality of life (SQOL) of severely mentally ill patients (n = 59) receiving community support services with a random sample from the general population members (n = 253) and welfare recipients (n = 79). Research participants lived in two cities of Northwest Quebec. The Satisfaction with Life Domain Scale (Baker & Intagliata, 1982) was used in face to face interviews, and also administered as a mail-in questionnaire for the general population. Results show that patients' subjective quality of life as-a-whole is lower than the general population. Mentally ill patients were more satisfied with material domains (e.g., housing and finances) than welfare recipients. However, mentally ill patients were less satisfied with interpersonal relationships, including people they live with, family members and their love life.