Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31852698›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Community health workers involvement in preventative care in primary healthcare: a systematic scoping review.

Nila Sharma, Elizabeth Harris, Jane Lloyd, Sabuj Kanti Mistry, Mark Harris

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Advancing equity and value in United States healthcare: an umbrella review.International journal for equity in health · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nila SharmaCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Elizabeth HarrisCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jane LloydCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sabuj Kanti MistryCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mark HarrisCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia m.f.harris@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0705-8913
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo review effective models of community health worker (CHW) involvement in preventive care for disadvantaged culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) patients in primary healthcare (PHC) that may be applicable to the Australian context.

designSystematic scoping review. DATA SOURCES: The studies were gathered through searching Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and online portals of relevant organisations. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All selected studies were original research studies which essentially evaluated preventive intervention undertake by CHWs in PHC. The intervened population were adults with or without diagnosed chronic health disease, culturally and linguistically diverse, or vulnerable due to geographic, economic and/or cultural characteristics that impede or compromise their access to healthcare. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was undertaken systematically in an excel spreadsheet while the findings were synthesised in a narrative manner. The quality appraisal of the selected studies was performed using effective public health practice project quality assessment tool.

resultsA total of 1066 articles were identified during the initial search of six bibliographic databases. After screening the title, abstract and full text, 37 articles met the selection and methodological criteria and underwent data extraction. A high-quality evidence-base supporting the positive impact of CHWs supporting patients' access to healthcare and influencing positive behaviour change was found. Positive impacts of CHW interventions included improvements in clinical disease indicators, screening rates and behavioural change. Education-focused interventions were more effective in improving patient behaviour, whereas navigation interventions were most effective in improving access to services. Implementation was enhanced by cultural and linguistic congruence and specific training of CHWs in the intervention but reduced by short duration interventions, dropouts and poor adherence of patients.

conclusionThe evidence generated from this systematic scoping review demonstrates the contribution of CHWs to improving access to preventive care for patients from CALD and disadvantaged backgrounds by providing both education and navigational interventions. More research is needed on CHW training and the incorporation of CHWs into primary health care (PHC) teams.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersCultural CompetencyCultural DiversityHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPreventive MedicinePrimary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVulnerable Populationscommunity health workersculturally and linguistically diverse populationdisadvantaged populationspreventive medicineprimary care

Identifiers

PMID31852698
PMCPMC6937114
OpenAlexW2995404491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.