Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27207151›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2016

How equitable are community health worker programmes and which programme features influence equity of community health worker services? A systematic review.

Rosalind McCollum, Woedem Gomez, Sally Theobald, Miriam Taegtmeyer

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
26.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rosalind McCollumLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK. r.mccollum@liverpool.ac.uk.
Woedem GomezLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Sally TheobaldLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Miriam TaegtmeyerLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity health workers (CHWs) are uniquely placed to link communities with the health system, playing a role in improving the reach of health systems and bringing health services closer to hard-to-reach and marginalised groups. A systematic review was conducted to determine the extent of equity of CHW programmes and to identify intervention design factors which influence equity of health outcomes.

methodsIn accordance with our published protocol, we systematically searched eight databases from 2004 to 2014 for quantitative and qualitative studies which assessed access, utilisation, quality or community empowerment following introduction of a CHW programme according to equity stratifiers (place of residence, gender, socio-economic position and disability). Thirty four papers met inclusion criteria. A thematic framework was applied and data extracted and managed, prior to charting and thematic analysis.

resultsTo our knowledge this is the first systematic review that describes the extent of equity within CHW programmes and identifies CHW intervention design features which influence equity. CHW programmes were found to promote equity of access and utilisation for community health by reducing inequities relating to place of residence, gender, education and socio-economic position. CHWs can also contribute towards more equitable uptake of referrals at health facility level. There was no clear evidence for equitable quality of services provided by CHWs and limited information regarding the role of the CHW in generating community empowerment to respond to social determinants of health. Factors promoting greater equity of CHW services include recruitment of most poor community members as CHWs, close proximity of services to households, pre-existing social relationship with CHW, provision of home-based services, free service delivery, targeting of poor households, strengthened referral to facility, sensitisation and mobilisation of community. However, if CHW programmes are not well planned some of the barriers faced by clients at health facility level can replicate at community level.

conclusionsCHWs promote equitable access to health promotion, disease prevention and use of curative services at household level. However, care must be taken by policymakers and implementers to take into account factors which can influence the equity of services during planning and implementation of CHW programmes.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesCommunity Health WorkersDelivery of Health CareHealth PromotionHealth Services AccessibilityHouse CallsHumansQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareReferral and ConsultationResidence CharacteristicsSex FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsClose-to-community providerCommunity health workerEquityInequitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27207151
PMCPMC4875684
OpenAlexW2405899926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.