↓ Skip to main content

Factors influencing motivation and job satisfaction among supervisors of community health workers in marginalized communities in South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
302 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors influencing motivation and job satisfaction among supervisors of community health workers in marginalized communities in South Africa
Published in
Human Resources for Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12960-016-0151-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olagoke Akintola, Gamuchirai Chikoko

Abstract

Management and supervision of community health workers are factors that are critical to the success of community health worker programmes. Yet few studies have explored the perspectives of supervisors in these programmes. This study explored factors influencing motivations of supervisors in community health worker programmes. We conducted qualitative interviews with 26 programme staff providing supervision to community health workers in eight community-based organizations in marginalized communities in the greater Durban area of South Africa from July 2010 to September 2011. Findings show that all the supervisors had previous experience working in the health or social services sectors and most started out as unpaid community health workers. Most of the participants were poor women from marginalized communities. Supervisors' activities include the management and supply of material resources, mentoring and training of community health workers, record keeping and report writing. Supervisors were motivated by intrinsic factors like making a difference and community appreciation and non-monetary incentives such as promotion to supervisory positions; acquisition of management skills; participation in capacity building and the development of programmes; and support for educational advancement like salary, bonuses and medical benefits. Hygiene factors that serve to prevent dissatisfaction are salaries and financial, medical and educational benefits attached to the supervisory position. Demotivating factors identified are patients' non-adherence to health advice and alienation from decision-making. Dissatisfiers include working in crime-prevalent communities, remuneration for community health workers (CHWs), problems with material and logistical resources, job insecurity, work-related stressors and navigating the interface between CHWs and management. While participants were dissatisfied with their low remuneration, they were not demotivated but continued to be motivated by intrinsic factors. Our findings suggest that CHWs' quest for remuneration and a career path continues even after they assume supervisory positions. Supervisors continue to be motivated to work in mid-level positions within the health and social services sectors. Global efforts to develop and increase the sustainability of CHW programmes will benefit immensely from insights gained from an exploration of supervisors' perspectives. Further, national CHW programmes should be conceptualized with the dual purpose of building the capacity of CHWs to strengthen health systems and reducing unemployment especially in marginalized communities with high unemployment and low-skilled labour force.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 302 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 301 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 18%
Researcher 34 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 6%
Other 59 20%
Unknown 86 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 57 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 16%
Social Sciences 32 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 6%
Psychology 13 4%
Other 37 12%
Unknown 98 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2024.
All research outputs
#4,279,612
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#498
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,709
of 344,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.