Health by the people, again? The lost lessons of Alma-Ata in a community health worker programme in Zambia
Social Science & Medicine, ISSN: 0277-9536, Vol: 319, Page: 115257
2023
- 9Citations
- 77Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations9
- Citation Indexes9
- CrossRef1
- Captures77
- Readers77
- 77
Article Description
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.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622005639; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115257; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85138785521&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36115730; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277953622005639; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115257
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know