1. MABAYI CHILD SURVIVAL
PROJECT CIBITOKE
PROVINCE, 
 BURUNDI
A Promising Approach to Care Groups

2. • Objective & Key Research
Questions
• What are the two models
• What are the main difference
between the models
• OR Study design
• Discussion of Preliminary
Results

3. To test the effectiveness and sustainability of an
Integrated Care Group Model to improve both
knowledge and practice of key child health and
nutrition behaviors as compared to the Traditional
Care Group Model

4.  Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same
improvement in the knowledge of key child health and
nutrition behaviors among caregivers of children 0-23 months
as the Traditional Care Group Model?
 Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same
improvement in the practice of key child health and nutrition
behaviors among caregivers of children 0-23 months as the
Traditional Care Group Model?
 Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same
level of Care Group functionality as the Traditional Care
Group Model?
 Does the Integrated Care Group Model achieve the same
level of Care Group sustainability as the Traditional Care
Group Model?

7. Traditional Model Integrated Model
Supervision • MOH Staff: support the CHWs
• Animators (Supervisors)-paid, NGO • Animators (paid NGO staff): provide
staff: supervise Promoters oversight, supervision and follow-up
at all levels
• Health Promoters-paid, NGO staff:
motivate and supervise Care Group • Each Community Health Worker
Volunteers which includes CHWs (CHW): motivates and supervises 2
Care Groups
Training CHWs responsible for training Care
Care Group Volunteers and CHWs Group volunteers and facilitating Care
trained by Health Promoters Groups
CHWs are trained by MOH staff

8. Traditional model
Integrated model

9. Janvier Niandwi-
Community Health Worker

10. Joseline
Akimana, Care Group
Volunteer

11. Traditional Care Integrated Care Comparisons
Group Model Group Model
Collines of 13 Collines 16 Collines Knowledge & practices of
comparable 5,344 HH 5,134 HH key child health & nutrition
population 51 Care Groups 59 Care Groups behaviors among caregivers
of children 0-23 months.
Support& 1 Animator 1 Animator/TPS Functionality
Supervision (Supervisor) (MOH Staff)
6 Promoters
(1 per 9 CG)
Frequency of Care Twice per month Twice per month Functionality
Group Training
Trained by Promoter CHWs trained by
MOH
CHW roles with CG Participants Trainers Sustainability
(1 or 2 per CG)

12.  13 out of 14 Titulaires interviewed commented on the
strong working relationship with CHWs that has
developed as a direct result of the MCSP
 CHWs and CGVs commented on how easily information
is spread throughout their communities as a result of the
Care Group network of volunteers
 Health center staff stated that information between the
health center team and the communities now passes
quickly and directly to those concerned

19.  Both models achieving high levels of efficiency
 In general traditional group performing more efficiently
 Not unexpected due to presence of Promoters
 Greatest difference in percentage of households
receiving at least one visit per month
 Possible trade off between efficiency and potential
sustainability

20.  Husbands
 Local
administration
 Problems with
CHWs
 Pressure for
financial motivation

21. Anticipating an endline survey will be conducted in February
2013