Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30898136›Full record

ReviewHuman resources for health2019

Setting the global research agenda for community health systems: literature and consultative review.

Smisha Agarwal, Karen Kirk, Pooja Sripad, Ben Bellows, Timothy Abuya, Charlotte Warren

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human resources for health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
20.0field-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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Smisha AgarwalPopulation Council, 4301 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 280, Washington DC, 20009, United States of America. smishaa@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7407-0066
Karen KirkPopulation Council, 4301 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 280, Washington DC, 20009, United States of America.
Pooja SripadPopulation Council, 4301 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 280, Washington DC, 20009, United States of America.
Ben BellowsPopulation Council, 4301 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 280, Washington DC, 20009, United States of America.
Timothy AbuyaPopulation Council, Avenue 5, 3rd Floor, Rose Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya.
Charlotte WarrenPopulation Council, 4301 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 280, Washington DC, 20009, United States of America.
Population Council · USBritish Council · KEJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, there is renewed interest in and momentum for strengthening community health systems, as also emphasized by the recent Astana Declaration. Recent reviews have identified factors critical to successful community health worker (CHW) programs but pointed to significant evidence gaps. This review aims to propose a global research agenda to strengthen CHW programs. METHODS AND

resultsWe conducted a search for extant systematic reviews on any intermediate factors affecting the effectiveness of CHW programs in February 2018. A total of 30 articles published after year 2000 were included. Data on research gaps were abstracted and summarized under headings based on predominant themes identified in the literature. Following this data gathering phase, two technical advisory groups comprised of experts in the field of community health-including policymakers, implementors, researchers, advocates and donors-were convened to discuss, validate, and prioritize the research gaps identified. Research gap areas that were identified in the literature and validated through expert consultation include selection and training of CHWs, community embeddedness, institutionalization of CHW programs (referrals, supervision, and supply chain), CHW needs including incentives and remuneration, governance and sustainability of CHW programs, performance and quality of care, and cost-effectiveness of CHW programs. Priority research questions included queries on effective policy, financing, governance, supervision and monitoring systems for CHWs and community health systems, implementation questions around the role of digital technologies, CHW preferences, and drivers of CHW motivation and retention over time.

conclusionsAs international interest and investment in CHW programs and community health systems continue to grow, it becomes critical not only to analyze the evidence that exists, but also to clearly define research questions and collect additional evidence to ensure that CHW programs are effective, efficient, equity promoting, and evidence based. Generally, the literature places a strong emphasis on the need for higher quality, more robust research.

Indexed as

Community Health PlanningCommunity Health ServicesCommunity Health WorkersGlobal HealthHealth Services ResearchPrimary Health CareCommunity ParticipationCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareHealth PolicyHealth PrioritiesHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansMotivationRemunerationCommunity health systemsCommunity health workersFrontline health workersLiterature reviewPrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID30898136
PMCPMC6429801
OpenAlexW2938171602

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.