Hub characteristics and functions | Jamaica | Kenya | Uganda | South Africa | All countries |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average number of years hubs in each country that were operational during programme | 3.9 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.3 | 3.8 |
Number of hubs operational at follow-up | 3/3 | 3/3 | 3/3 | 2/3 | 11/12 |
Total number of hub members over hub lifespan | 28 | 58 | 33 | 48 | 167 |
Average number of members per hub (n = total number of hub members from all hubs in country) |  |  |  |  |  |
 At baseline | 7.0 (n = 21) | 13.7 (n = 41) | 7.0 (n = 21) | 9.0 (n = 27) | 9.1 (n = 110) |
 At follow-upd | 5.3 (n = 16) | 9.7 (n = 29) | 6.7 (n = 20) | 13.5 (n = 27)a | 8.4 (n = 92)a |
Percentage of hub members at follow-up actively participating in hub activities | 100Â % | 69.0Â % | 95.0Â % | 66.7Â % | 79.3Â % |
Composition of hub members actively participating in hub activities at follow-upb | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 Nurses | 12 (75.0 %) | 17 (85.0 %) | 7 (36.8 %) | 7 (38.9 %) | 43 (58.9 %) |
 Decision-makers | 0 (0.0 %) | 10 (50.0 %) | 7 (36.8 %) | 6 (33.3 %) | 23 (31.5 %) |
 Researchers | 3 (18.8 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 5 (26.3 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 8 (11.0 %) |
 Community representatives | 1 (6.3 %) | 3 (15.0 %) | 6 (31.6 %) | 4 (22.2 %) | 14 (19.2 %) |
Leadership hub turnover ratec | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 2008–2009d | 0.0 % | 27.3 % | 8.0 % | 9.4 % | 13.5 % |
 2010 | 34.1 % | 2.8 % | 10.9 % | 10.8 % | 12.4 % |
 2011 | 0.0 % | 24.6 % | 0.0 % | 6.3 % | 10.0 % |
 2012d,e | 27.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 5.0 % |
 Average over hub lifespan 95 % confidence interval | 15.3 ± 15.2 % | 13.7 ± 12.1 % | 4.7 ± 4.7 % | 6.6 ± 4.1 % | 10.2 ± 3.2 % |
Percentage of hub members at follow-up that were in the hub for its total duration | 81.3Â % (13/16) | 65.5Â % (19/29) | 65.0Â % (13/20) | 77.8Â % (21/27) | 71.7Â % (66/92) |
Number of sampled intervention institutions with hub member representatives engaged in the hub evaluation projects | 4 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 17 |
Percentage of hub members over hub lifespan from | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 Sampled institutions | 57.1 % (16/28) | 19.0 % (11/58) | 24.2 % (8/33) | 27.1 % (13/48) | 28.7 % (48/167) |
 Non-sampled institutions | 39.3 % (11/28) | 56.9 % (33/58) | 51.5 % (17/33) | 43.8 % (21/48) | 49.1 % (82/167) |
 Other workplaces or community | 3.6 % (1/28) | 24.1 % (14/58) | 24.2 % (8/33) | 29.2 % (14/48) | 22.2 % (37/167) |
Percentage of sampled intervention institutions with hub members representation during the hub lifespan | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 National or provincial hospitals | 100 % (3/3) | 100 % (1/1) | 100 % (1/1) | 50 % (1/2) | 85.7 % (6/7) |
 District or parish hospitals | 100 % (1/1) | 66.7 % (2/3) | 33.3 % (1/3) | 0 % (0/1) | 50.0 % (4/8) |
 Health centres | 0 % (0/13) | 50.0 % (6/12) | 0.0 % (0/12) | 58.3 % (7/12) | 26.5 % (13/49) |
 Average for all institutions | 23.5 % (4/17) | 56.3 % (9/16) | 12.5 % (2/16) | 53.3 % (8/15) | 35.9 % (23/64) |
Range and average number of hub members per intervention institution during the hub lifespan | Range 0–9 | Range 0–2 | Range 0–5 | Range 0–4 | Range 0–9 |
Average 0.9 | Average 0.7 | Average 0.5 | Average 0.9 | Average 0.8 | |
Range and average number of distinct workplaces represented by hub members in each hub during hub lifespan | Range 2–5 | Range 8–11 | Range 3–7 | Range 8–15 | Range 2–15 |
Average 3.3 | Average 9.7 | Average 4.7 | Average 11.7 | Average 7.4 | |
Number of hub meetings per country, 2008–2012 | 30 | 39 | 25 | 36 | 130 |