↓ Skip to main content

Time motion study using mixed methods to assess service delivery by frontline health workers from South India: methods

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 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
Time motion study using mixed methods to assess service delivery by frontline health workers from South India: methods
Published in
Human Resources for Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12960-018-0279-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samiksha Singh, Sanjeev Upadhyaya, Pradeep Deshmukh, Amol Dongre, Neha Dwivedi, Deepak Dey, Vijay Kumar

Abstract

In India, amidst the increasing number of health programmes, there are concerns about the performance of frontline health workers (FLHW). We assessed the time utilisation and factors affecting the work of frontline health workers from South India. This is a mixed methods study using time and motion (TAM) direct observations and qualitative enquiry among frontline/community health workers. These included 43 female and 6 male multipurpose health workers (namely, auxiliary nurse midwives (ANMs) and male-MPHWs), 12 nutrition and health workers (Anganwadi workers, AWWs) and 53 incentive-based community health workers (accredited social health activists, ASHAs). We conducted the study in two phases. In the formative phase, we conducted an in-depth inductive investigation to develop observation checklists and qualitative tools. The main study involved deductive approach for TAM observations. This enabled us to observe a larger sample to capture variations across non-tribal and tribal regions and different health cadres. For the main study, we developed GPRS-enabled android-based application to precisely record time, multi-tasking and field movement. We conducted non-participatory direct observations (home to home) for consecutively 6 days for each participant. We conducted in-depth interviews with all the participants and 33 of their supervisors and relevant officials. We conducted six focus group discussions (FGDs) with ASHAs and one FGD with ANMs to validate preliminary findings. We established a mechanism for quality assurance of data collection and analysis. We analysed the data separately for each cadre and stratified for non-tribal and tribal regions. On any working day, the ANMs spent median 7:04 h, male-MPHWs spent median 5:44 h and AWWs spent median 6:50 h on the job. The time spent on the job was less among the FLHWs from tribal areas as compared to those from non-tribal areas. ANMs and AWWs prioritised maternal and child health, while male-MPHWs were involved in seasonal diseases and school health. ASHAs visited homes to provide maternal health, basic curative care, and follow-up of tuberculosis patients. The results describe issues related with work planning, time management and several systemic, community-based and personnel factors affecting work of FLHWs. TAM study with mixed methods can help researchers as well as managers to periodically review work patterns, devise appropriate job responsibilities and improve the efficiency of health workers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 172 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 59 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 19%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 2%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 62 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,936,759
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#708
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,875
of 342,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
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 is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 342,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.