Skip to main content

Table 5 Effect of community engagement interventions on health worker perceptions (n = 468)

From: Perspectives of frontline health workers on Ghana’s National Health Insurance Scheme before and after community engagement interventions

Matching algorithm

Outcome Indicators

aATT (T-stat)

SE

Number of Intervention

Number of Control

Nearest Neighbor (NN)

Perception factor1

1.94(−0.26)**

0.080

194

221

 

Perception factor2

2.46(−0.71)

0.165

36

39

 

Perception factor3

2.56(−0.25)**

0.089

200

229

 

Perception factor4

1.72(−1.37)*

0.099

98

102

 

Perception factor5

2.48(−0.46)**

0.082

194

218

 

Overall

2.24(0.13)

0.178

21

17

 

Perceived impact1

2.07(2.60)**

0.074

198

223

 

Perceived impact2

1.18(1.36)**

0.062

201

223

 

Perceived impact3

1.38(1.44)**

0.067

201

224

 

Overall

1.72(3.66)**

0.052

198

221

  1. Source: WOTRO-COHEiSION Ghana Project (2014); *Psuedo-R2 (p < 1.0); **Pseudo-R2 (p < 0.05)
  2. aATT (Average treatment effect on the treated). The ATT values are the propensity score matching output and they depict the impact of the treatment (SCE interventions) on each of the staff motivation markers, high values imply higher treatment effect and vice versa
  3. Legend: SE (Standard Error); Perception factor1 (Feedback channels and stakeholder engagement); Perception factor2 (Information provision, adequacy, accessibility); Perception factor3 (Availability and quality of drugs covered by NHIS); Perception factor4 (Reimbursements and benefits package); Perception factor5 (Trustworthiness and complaint handling); Overall perception (Overall score based on all five perception variables). Perceived impact1 (Workload and health resource); Perceived impact2 (Client waiting time and queuing system); Perceived impact3 (Quality of time spent per client); Overall perceived impact (Overall score based on all 3 perception variables on impact of NHIS on quality health service delivery)