Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30590543›Full record

SynthesisHealth policy and planning2018

Community health volunteers could help improve access to and use of essential health services by communities in LMICs: an umbrella review.

Mirkuzie Woldie, Garumma Tolu Feyissa, Bitiya Admasu, Kalkidan Hassen, Kirstin Mitchell, Susannah Mayhew, Martin McKee, Dina Balabanova

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health policy and planning, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of elevated blood pressure and hypertension 2025 (JSH2025).Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

45 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

8 authors.

Mirkuzie WoldieDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Garumma Tolu FeyissaDepartment of Health, Behaviour and Society, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Bitiya AdmasuDepartment of Population and Family Health, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Kalkidan HassenDepartment of Population and Family Health, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Kirstin MitchellUniversity of Glasgow.
Susannah MayhewLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Martin McKeeLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Dina BalabanovaLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N004221/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of primary studies and systematic reviews focused on the contribution of community health workers (CHWs) in the delivery of essential health services. In many countries, a cadre of informal health workers also provide services on a volunteer basis [community health volunteers (CHV)], but there has been no synthesis of studies investigating their role and potential contribution across a range of health conditions; most existing studies are narrowly focused on a single condition. As this cadre grows in importance, there is a need to examine the evidence on whether and how CHVs can improve access to and use of essential health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We report an umbrella review of systematic reviews, searching PubMed, the Cochrane library, the database of abstracts of reviews of effects (DARE), EMBASE, ProQuest dissertation and theses, the Campbell library and DOPHER. We considered a review as 'systematic' if it had an explicit search strategy with qualitative or quantitative summaries of data. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal assessment checklist to assess methodological quality. A data extraction format prepared a priori was used to extract data. Findings were synthesized narratively. Of 422 records initially found by the search strategy, we identified 39 systematic reviews eligible for inclusion. Most concluded that services provided by CHVs were not inferior to those provided by other health workers, and sometimes better. However, CHVs performed less well in more complex tasks such as diagnosis and counselling. Their performance could be strengthened by regular supportive supervision, in-service training and adequate logistical support, as well as a high level of community ownership. The use of CHVs in the delivery of selected health services for population groups with limited access, particularly in LMICs, appears promising. However, success requires careful implementation, strong policy backing and continual support by their managers.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersHealth Services AccessibilityPatient Acceptance of Health CareDeveloping CountriesHumansVolunteersaccesscommunity health volunteershealth servicesLow- and middle-income countriesutilization

Identifiers

PMID30590543
PMCPMC6415721

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.