Philani Plus (+): a Mentor Mother community health worker home visiting program to improve maternal and infants' outcomes.
ABSTRACT Pregnant mothers in South African townships face multiple health risks for themselves and their babies. Existing clinic-based services face barriers to access, utilization, and human resource capacities. Home visiting by community health workers (CHW) can mitigate such barriers. The Philani Plus (+) Intervention Program builds upon the original Philani CHW home-visiting intervention program for maternal and child nutrition by integrating content and activities to address HIV, alcohol, and mental health. Pregnant Mothers at Risk (MAR) for HIV, alcohol, and/or nutrition problems in 24 neighborhoods in townships in Cape Town, South Africa (n = 1,239) were randomly assigned by neighborhood to an intervention (Philani Plus (+), N = 12 neighborhoods; n = 645 MAR) or a standard-care control condition of neighborhood clinic-based services (N = 12 neighborhoods; n = 594 MAR). Positive peer deviant "Mentor Mother" CHWs are recruited from the township neighborhoods and trained to deliver four antenatal and four postnatal home visits that address HIV, alcohol, nutrition, depression, health care regimens for the family, caretaking and bonding, and securing government-provided child grants. The MAR and their babies are being monitored during pregnancy, 1 week post-birth, and 6 and 18 months later. Among the 1,239 MAR recruited: 26% were HIV-positive; 27% used alcohol during pregnancy; 17% previously had low-birthweight babies; 23% had at least one chronic condition (10% hypertension, 5% asthma, 2% diabetes); 93% had recent sexual partners with 10% known to be HIV+; and 17% had clinically significant prenatal depression and 42% had borderline depression. This paper presents the intervention protocol and baseline sample characteristics for the "Philani Plus (+)" CHW home-visiting intervention trial.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Evidence-based therapeutic and preventive intervention programs (EBIs) have been growing exponentially. Yet EBIs have not been broadly adopted in the United States. In order for our EBI science to significantly reduce disease burden, we need to critically reexamine our scientific conventions and norms. Innovation may be spurred by reexamining the traditional biomedical model for validating, implementing, and diffusing EBI products and science. The model of disruptive innovations suggests that we reengineer EBIs on the basis of their most robust features in order to serve more people in less time and at lower cost. A disruptive innovation provides a simpler and less expensive alternative that meets the essential needs for the majority of consumers and is more accessible, scalable, replicable, and sustainable. Examples of disruptive innovations from other fields include minute clinics embedded in retail chain drug stores, $2 generic eyeglasses, automated teller machines, and telemedicine. Four new research approaches will be required to support disruptive innovations in EBI science: synthesize common elements across EBIs; experiment with new delivery formats (e.g., consumer controlled, self-directed, brief, paraprofessional, coaching, and technology and media strategies); adopt market strategies to promote and diffuse EBI science, knowledge, and products; and adopt continuous quality improvement as a research paradigm for systematically improving EBIs, based on ongoing monitoring data and feedback. EBI science can have more impact if it can better leverage what we know from existing EBIs in order to inspire, engage, inform, and support families and children to adopt and sustain healthy daily routines and lifestyles. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).American Psychologist 04/2012; 67(6):463-76. DOI:10.1037/a0028180 · 6.87 Impact Factor
- 06/2012; 2(1):10302. DOI:10.7189/jogh.02.010302
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The recent National Mental Health Summit included discussion of research priorities for South Africa. This paper reviews some of the background literature that is relevant to this key issue. It draws attention to one contested question, the extent to which research in low and middle income countries should address questions about fundamental mechanisms and clinical treatments versus focusing on questions about implementation and systems research? In addressing this question, the paper argues that the boundary between good clinical practice and good academic scholarship is not nearly as distinct as is often assumed (the "research fallacy"); prospective rigorous assessments, retrospective clinical audits, evidence-based medicine, and useful information systems all point to the mutual interdependence of good practice and good scholarship. Finally, some general conclusions that the majority of summit delegates participating in the discussion on research agreed to, are presented.African Journal of Psychiatry 11/2012; 15(6):427-31. DOI:10.4314/ajpsy.v15i6.54 · 0.73 Impact Factor