Back

Workforce Cost Absorption among Community Health Promoters in Fragmented Maternal Nutrition and Social Protection Systems: A Qualitative Study Across Three Kenyan Settings

SIVA, F. M.; Nyatuka, D.; de la Harpe, R.

2026-09-01 primary care research
10.64898/2026.08.26.26361384 medRxiv
Show abstract

Community Health Promoters (CHPs) connect households with formal health services. In maternal nutrition, they provide counselling, follow-up and referrals. However, pregnant women experiencing poverty, food insecurity, and socio-cultural issues in resource-constrained settings may be unable to act on nutritional advice. While social protection could alleviate such socioeconomic issues, maternal nutrition and social safety nets operate in institutional silos, creating gaps that systematically exclude vulnerable mothers from essential relief. This qualitative study examines how CHPs navigate these gaps across three underserved Kenyan settings. We analysed semi-structured interviews of 12 purposively selected CHPs from a broader study of 75 stakeholders, using the Braun and Clarke thematic analysis framework. CHPs described recurrent gaps between household needs and resources available through formal maternal health, nutrition, and social protection systems. CHPs stepped in; extending follow-up care, brokering information, negotiating access, and spending personal resources with inadequate formal mechanisms. They experienced emotional and relational pressure from community mistrust, cultural limitations, administrative gatekeeping, digital-system failures, heavy workloads, and performance targets tied to unreliable pay. These insights reveal that CHPs act as invisible safety nets for fragmented services, taking on burdens that official programs overlook. We describe this as workforce cost absorption. Recognising this hidden contribution is important for workforce planning and for designing integrated maternal nutrition and social protection programs.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.