Sub-Saharan Africa faces significant challenges in delivering sustainable obstetric and gynaecological care, characterised by high maternal mortality, workforce shortages, and resource constraints. Uganda has pursued community-integrated models to improve access and outcomes. This case study analysed Uganda's community-based approaches to obstetric and gynaecological care. It evaluated their design, implementation, and sustainability to identify components contributing to their resilience in a low-resource setting. A qualitative case study methodology was employed. This involved document analysis of policy frameworks, programme reports, and grey literature, supplemented by a synthesis of existing programme evaluations and stakeholder commentaries. The analysis identified a model built on task-shifting to community health workers and traditional birth attendants, integrated with formal health systems. A central component was the empowerment of village health teams in health promotion and basic emergency referral. This was associated with an increase in facility-based deliveries in some programme areas. Uganda's experience indicates that sustainable care in low-resource settings can be advanced by strategically leveraging community human resources within a supported, integrated framework. This approach addresses critical access gaps. Policymakers should consider formalising the training, remuneration, and supervision of community-based cadres. Programmes must ensure robust referral pathways and continuous commodity supply. Further research is needed to quantify long-term health outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Sustainable healthcare, community health workers, maternal health, task-shifting, low-resource settings, Uganda This case study provides a structured analysis of a community-based model for sustainable obstetric and gynaecological care, offering insights for similar settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakato Muwanga (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: