Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27921257›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2017

Impact of Community Health Workers on Use of Healthcare Services in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Helen E Jack, Sophia D Arabadjis, Lucy Sun, Erin E Sullivan, Russell S Phillips

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Navigating Substance Use Care in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

34 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

5 authors.

Helen E JackCenter for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Helen_Jack@hms.harvard.edu.
Sophia D ArabadjisCenter for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Lucy SunHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Erin E SullivanCenter for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Russell S PhillipsCenter for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the US transitions to value-based healthcare, physicians and payers are incentivized to change healthcare delivery to improve quality of care while controlling costs. By assisting with the management of common chronic conditions, community health workers (CHWs) may improve healthcare quality, but physicians and payers who are making choices about care delivery also need to understand their effects on healthcare spending.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Science from the inception of each database to 22 June 2015. We included US-based studies that evaluated a CHW intervention for patients with at least one chronic health condition and reported cost or healthcare utilization outcomes. We evaluated studies using tools specific to study design.

resultsOur search yielded 2,941 studies after removing duplicates. Thirty-four met inclusion and methodological criteria. Sixteen studies (47%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs typically had less positive outcomes than other study designs. Of the 16 RCTs, 12 reported utilization outcomes, of which 5 showed a significant reduction in one or more of ED visits, hospitalizations and/or urgent care visits. Significant reductions reported in ED visits ranged from 23%-51% and in hospitalizations ranged from 21%-50%, and the one significant reduction in urgent care visits was recorded at 60% (p < 0.05 for all). DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that CHW interventions have variable effects, but some may reduce costs and preventable utilization. These findings suggest that it is possible to achieve reductions in care utilization and cost savings by integrating CHWs into chronic care management. However, variations in cost and utilization outcomes suggest that CHWs alone do not make an intervention successful. The paucity of rigorous studies and heterogeneity of study designs limited conclusions about factors associated with reduced utilization.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesCommunity Health WorkersCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareEmergency Service, HospitalHospitalizationHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQuality of Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited Stateschronic disease managementcommunity healthcommunity health workershealthcare costshealthcare utilizationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27921257
PMCPMC5331010

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.