Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26455578›Full record

ArticleJournal of community health2016

Do State Community Health Worker Laws Align with Best Available Evidence?

Colleen Barbero, Siobhan Gilchrist, Jamie F Chriqui, Molly A Martin, Ashley Wennerstrom, Jennifer VanderVeur, Kim Prewitt, J Nell Brownstein

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Colleen BarberoCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Northeast Mail Stop F-75, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA. vrm5@cdc.gov.
Siobhan GilchristIHRC, Inc., 2 Ravina Drive Suite 1750, Atlanta, GA, 30346, USA.
Jamie F ChriquiUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, 453 Westside Research Office Building, 1747 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, IL, 60608, USA.
Molly A MartinUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, 453 Westside Research Office Building, 1747 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, IL, 60608, USA.
Ashley WennerstromSchool of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Tulane University, 1430 Tulane Avenue, SL-16, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Jennifer VanderVeurCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Northeast Mail Stop F-75, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA.
Kim PrewittBrown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, 700 Rosedale Ave CB 1009, St. Louis, MO, 63112, USA.
J Nell BrownsteinCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Northeast Mail Stop F-75, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA.

Funding

PHS HHS 11IPA1103219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community health workers (CHWs) are expected to improve patient care and population health while reducing health care costs. Law is a tool states are using to build a supportive infrastructure for the CHW workforce. This study assessed the extent existing state law pertaining to the CHW workforce aligned with best available evidence. We used the previously developed Quality and Impact of Component (QuIC) Evidence Assessment method to identify and prioritize those components that could comprise an evidence-informed CHW policy at the state level. We next assessed the extent codified statutes and regulations in effect as of December 31, 2014 for the 50 states and D.C. included the components identified in the evidence assessment. Fourteen components of an evidence-informed CHW policy were identified; eight had best, three had promising, and three had emerging evidence bases. Codified law in 18 states (35.3 % of 51) pertained to the CHW workforce. Fifteen of these 18 states authorized at least one of the 14 components from the evidence assessment (maximum: nine components, median: 2.5). The most frequently authorized component was a defined scope of practice for CHWs (authorized by eight states) followed by a standard core competency curriculum and inclusion of CHWs in multidisciplinary health care teams (each authorized by six states). States could consider the components presented in this article when developing new or strengthening existing law.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCommunity Health WorkersEvidence-Based MedicineDatabases, FactualHealth PolicyHumansUnited StatesCommunity health workerEvidence-informed policyHealth lawHealth policy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.