Table 6 Reported acceptability and feasibility of CHWs in sexual violence services
| Â | Acceptability | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|
Kohli, 2012 [49] | Not documented- assessment of whole programme rather than CHWs | Not documented- assessment of whole programme rather than CHWs |
Tanabe, 2013 [52] | Community members interviewed reported that CHWs are trusted members of society that survivors can seek care from | CHWs demonstrated comfort with the subject of sexual assault and good understanding of medical treatment; CHWs demonstrated full understanding of confidentiality and data collection; Safety was not an issue of excess concern to CHWs |
Barron, 2013 [47] | Survivors reported liking the programme & the programme being understandable | Cost of delivery was minimal particularly because the facilitators were volunteers. Training & experience contributed to facilitators spending very little time on preparation |
Merkin, 1995 [50] | Not documented- assessment of programme rather than CHWs | No assessment of feasibility documented |
Rossman, 1999 [51] | Rise in the use of volunteer advocates by 75%; feedback from victims of non-judgemental compassionate support provided | No assessment of feasibility documented |
Zraly, 2011 [53] | Interviewed women found the services useful and particularly when hospital services were inadequate for their needs | No assessment of feasibility documented |
Itzhaky, 2001 [48] | Feeling of trust for community workers developed; Large number of community members becoming involved in the prevention efforts | No assessment of feasibility documented |