Theme | Kohli, A. et al., 2012. | Tanabe, M. et al., 2013. | Barron, I. G. & Topping, K. J. 2013. | Merkin, L. & Smith, M. J. 1995. | Rossman, L. & Dunnuck, C. 1999. | Zraly, M., Rubin-Smith, J. & Betancourt, T. 2011. | Itzhaky, H. & York, A. S. 2001. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Acceptability of CHW services | Patients reported satisfaction with services provided; Few adolescents attended to, interviews with some revealed discomfort being seen in the same clinic with older women as being identified as SV survivor may diminish marriage opportunities | Community members reported that CHWs are trusted members of society that survivors can seek care from | Survivors reported liking the programme & the programme being understandable | Rising invitations to give lectures & workshops to the community | Rise in the use of volunteer advocates by 75%; feedback from victims of non-judgemental compassionate support provided | Women found the services useful and particularly when hospital services were inadequate for their needs | Feeling of trust for community workers developed; Large number of community members becoming involved in the prevention efforts |
Feasibility of CHW services | Overall, the mobile clinic utilised limited human resources, equipment & medication | CHWs demonstrated comfort with the subject of sexual assault and good understanding of medical treatment; CHWs also demonstrated full understanding of confidentiality and data collection; Safety was not an issue of concern to CHWs | Cost of delivery was minimal particularly because the facilitators were volunteers. Training & experience contributed to facilitators spending very little time on preparation, one hour | No assessment of feasibility documented | No assessment of feasibility documented | Study identifies the potential opportunity to incorporate the current informal support networks for survivors with the national CHW programme being implemented | No assessment of feasibility documented |