Skip to main content

Table 5 Membership and characteristics of leadership hubs, 2008–2012

From: The impact of leadership hubs on the uptake of evidence-informed nursing practices and workplace policies for HIV care: a quasi-experimental study in Jamaica, Kenya, Uganda and South Africa

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

100 %

69.0 %

95.0 %

66.7 %

79.3 %

Composition of hub members actively participating in hub activities at follow-upb

     

 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

     

 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

81.3 % (13/16)

65.5 % (19/29)

65.0 % (13/20)

77.8 % (21/27)

71.7 % (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

     

 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

     

 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

  1. aOne of the South African hubs ceased operations at the end of 2011 so was not included in follow-up measures
  2. bCategories are not mutually exclusive; some hub members were listed in more than one category
  3. cLeadership hub turnover is calculated as L/[(N(i) + N(f))/2], where L = number of hub members who left during the period; N(i) = number of hub members at the beginning of the period; and N(f) = number of hub members at the end of the period. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.)
  4. dSince hubs were established in either 2008 or 2009 (depending on the hub and country), turnover data for 2008 and 2009 were collapsed
  5. eThe final period was 6 months (January–June 2012)