Do incentives play a role in leadership retention?


Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

3139.0: Monday, December 12, 2005 - Board 7

Abstract #115215

C. Kevin Malotte, DrPH¹, Lori Miller Nascimento, MPH², Ana C. Canjura, BA³, Suzanne Padilla, MA³, Michael R. Cousineau, DrPH², and Ericka Gutierrez, BA⁴. (1) Health Science Department, California State University, Long Beach, 5500 Atherton Street, Suite 400, Long Beach, CA 90815, 5629852177, kmalotte@csulb.edu, (2) Department of Family Medicine, Division of Community Health, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, 3716 South Hope Street, Suite 256, Los Angeles, CA 90007, (3) Community Health and Social Epidemiology Programs, California State University, Long Beach, 5500 Atherton Street, Suite 400, Long Beach, CA 90815, (4) The Children's Clinic/Community Partners Council, 525 East Seventh Street, Long Beach, CA 90813

Background: While volunteer community health workers or “health leaders” (HLs) are frequently used to help educate members of underserved communities on a variety of health matters, there are minimal data revealing how and why they continue to serve their communities. A participatory research study conducted by a partnership among two universities and five community-based organizations in Los Angeles County seeks to answer these questions. Methods: 26 HLs in Long Beach (intervention group) receive either monetary or non-monetary incentives for their work on a six-month alternating schedule; 27 HLs in the San Gabriel Valley (comparison group) are not given an incentive. Every six months, a questionnaire is administered to the same participants to track their satisfaction, attitudes, participation and intentions as HLs. Records are also kept of HL activity. Results: Demographically, the two groups of leaders are similar; 94% are women, 87% Latino, and 53% have less than a high school education. Satisfaction with their roles was high in both groups at baseline and increased slightly at initial six-month follow-up using multiple satisfaction measures, with no significant difference between groups. The same was true for scales measuring empowerment and social support. This presentation will include data from the baseline and three follow-up assessments and participation logs for the first 18 months of the study allowing comparison of the impact monetary incentives, non-monetary incentives and no incentives on HLs productivity and satisfaction. Competing demands on the HLs will also be discussed.

Learning Objectives:

At the conclusion of this session, the participant will be able to

1. Describe a research protocol to measure volunteer HL retention and participation;
2. Understand various indicators of leader satisfaction among two groups of HLs;
3. Recognize five areas in which the HLs of both groups report positive outcomes as a results of their participation as leaders; and
4. Articulate three key findings pertaining to leader satisfaction and retention that compare HLs in the study group (received incentive) with those in the control group (no incentive).

Keywords: Community Collaboration, Community Health Promoters

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.

Community-based Methods and Models

The 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition (December 10-14, 2005) of APHA