Impact of school-based malaria intervention on primary school teachers' time in Malawi: evidence from a time and motion study.
Learner Treatment Kit
Malaria
School-based health
Time and motion study
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Oct 2022
27 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
05
07
2022
accepted:
18
10
2022
entrez:
27
10
2022
pubmed:
28
10
2022
medline:
29
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
School-based health (SBH) programmes that are contingent on primary school teachers are options to increase access to malaria treatment among learners. However, perceptions that provision of healthcare by teachers may be detrimental to teaching activities can undermine efforts to scale up school-based malaria control. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of school-based malaria diagnosis and treatment using the Learner Treatment Kit (LTK) on teachers' time. A time and motion study was conducted in 10 primary schools in rural Malawi. Teachers who had been trained to diagnose and treat uncomplicated malaria were continuously observed in real time during school sessions and the time they spent on all activities were recorded by independent observers before and after LTK implementation. A structured form, programmed digitally, was used for data collection. Paired sample t-tests were used to assess pre-post differences in average hours teachers spent on the following key activities: direct teaching; indirect teaching; administration; LTK and non-teaching tasks. Multivariable repeated measures mixed regression models were used to ascertain impact of LTK on average durations teachers spent on the key activities. Seventy-four teachers, trained to use LTK, were observed. Their mean age and years of teaching experience were 34.7 and 8.7, respectively. Overall, 739.8 h of teacher observations took place. The average time teachers spent in school before relative to after LTK was 5.8 vs. 4.8 h, p = 0.01. The cumulative percentage of time teachers spent on core teaching activities (teaching and administration) was approximately 76% and did not change substantially before and after LTK. Some 24.3% of teachers' time is spent on non-teaching activities. On average, teachers spent 2.9% of their time providing LTK services daily. Per day, each teacher spent less time on administrative (0.74 vs. 1.07 h, p = 0.02) and non-teaching activities (0.96 vs. 1.41 h, p = 0.01) during LTK compared with the period before LTK. School-based health (SBH) programmes are not detrimental to teaching activities. Teachers manage their time to ensure additional time required for SBH services is not at the expense of teaching duties. Programming and policy implications of tasking teachers with SBH does not have substantial opportunity costs. Teachers should continue delivering SBH programmes to promote learners' health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
School-based health (SBH) programmes that are contingent on primary school teachers are options to increase access to malaria treatment among learners. However, perceptions that provision of healthcare by teachers may be detrimental to teaching activities can undermine efforts to scale up school-based malaria control. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of school-based malaria diagnosis and treatment using the Learner Treatment Kit (LTK) on teachers' time.
METHODS
METHODS
A time and motion study was conducted in 10 primary schools in rural Malawi. Teachers who had been trained to diagnose and treat uncomplicated malaria were continuously observed in real time during school sessions and the time they spent on all activities were recorded by independent observers before and after LTK implementation. A structured form, programmed digitally, was used for data collection. Paired sample t-tests were used to assess pre-post differences in average hours teachers spent on the following key activities: direct teaching; indirect teaching; administration; LTK and non-teaching tasks. Multivariable repeated measures mixed regression models were used to ascertain impact of LTK on average durations teachers spent on the key activities.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seventy-four teachers, trained to use LTK, were observed. Their mean age and years of teaching experience were 34.7 and 8.7, respectively. Overall, 739.8 h of teacher observations took place. The average time teachers spent in school before relative to after LTK was 5.8 vs. 4.8 h, p = 0.01. The cumulative percentage of time teachers spent on core teaching activities (teaching and administration) was approximately 76% and did not change substantially before and after LTK. Some 24.3% of teachers' time is spent on non-teaching activities. On average, teachers spent 2.9% of their time providing LTK services daily. Per day, each teacher spent less time on administrative (0.74 vs. 1.07 h, p = 0.02) and non-teaching activities (0.96 vs. 1.41 h, p = 0.01) during LTK compared with the period before LTK.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
School-based health (SBH) programmes are not detrimental to teaching activities. Teachers manage their time to ensure additional time required for SBH services is not at the expense of teaching duties. Programming and policy implications of tasking teachers with SBH does not have substantial opportunity costs. Teachers should continue delivering SBH programmes to promote learners' health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36289501
doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04324-1
pii: 10.1186/s12936-022-04324-1
pmc: PMC9607742
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
301Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Apr;6(4):
pubmed: 33903176
BMC Public Health. 2017 Jun 12;17(1):572
pubmed: 28606136
Malar J. 2011 Dec 20;10:378
pubmed: 22185615
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Apr;102(4):304-5
pubmed: 18313705
Front Public Health. 2017 Jan 30;4:271
pubmed: 28194396
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016 Jun 27;4(2):251-63
pubmed: 27353618
Health Policy Plan. 2017 Sep 1;32(7):980-989
pubmed: 28444184
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 24;10(7):e0134061
pubmed: 26207758
Trop Med Int Health. 2014 Nov;19(11):1294-309
pubmed: 25145389
Malar J. 2017 Oct 2;16(1):395
pubmed: 28969643
Malar J. 2016 Dec 8;15(1):590
pubmed: 27931234
BMJ. 2015 Jun 02;350:h2622
pubmed: 26037412
Acta Trop. 2012 Mar;121(3):212-7
pubmed: 21763670
BMC Public Health. 2010 Oct 19;10:622
pubmed: 20955627
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Oct;93(4):779-789
pubmed: 26283750
Psychosom Med. 2006 Nov-Dec;68(6):870-8
pubmed: 17079709
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Mar;67(3):267-77
pubmed: 24275499
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Jan 14;5(1):e001666
pubmed: 32133163
Malar J. 2008 Sep 30;7:196
pubmed: 18826594
Malar J. 2012 Jun 08;11:185
pubmed: 22681850
BMC Public Health. 2015 Sep 17;15:904
pubmed: 26377070
Trop Med Int Health. 2001 Apr;6(4):273-9
pubmed: 11348518
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 Sep-Oct;18(5):704-10
pubmed: 21527407
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014;24(2):199-210
pubmed: 24969913
Lancet. 2008 Jul 12;372(9633):127-138
pubmed: 18620950
Malar J. 2020 Apr 17;19(1):158
pubmed: 32303240
Malar J. 2017 Aug 7;16(1):318
pubmed: 28784129