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)