Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32612967›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2020

Positionality of Community Health Workers on Health Intervention Research Teams: A Scoping Review.

Kiera Coulter, Maia Ingram, Deborah Jean McClelland, Abby Lohr

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Frontiers in public health · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. ARCHWAy: an innovative educational program advancing the public health workforce.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Kiera CoulterMel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Maia IngramMel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Deborah Jean McClellandUniversity of Arizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Abby LohrMel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.

Funding

Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research CentersU48DP005002 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI CARVAJAL, SCOTT CARTER · 2014 to 2018
$5.7M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community health workers (CHWs) are increasingly involved as members of health intervention research teams. Given that CHWs are engaged in a variety of research roles, there is a need for better understanding of the ways in which CHWs are incorporated in research and the potential benefits. This scoping review synthesizes evidence regarding the kinds of health research studies involving CHWs, CHWs' roles in implementing health intervention research, their positionality on research teams, and how their involvement benefits health intervention research. The scoping review includes peer-reviewed health intervention articles published between 2008-2018 in the U.S. A search of PubMed, Embase and CINAHL identified a total of 3,129 titles and abstracts, 266 of which met the inclusion criteria and underwent full text review. A total of 130 articles were identified for a primary analysis of the research and the level of CHWs involvement, and of these 23 articles were included in a secondary analysis in which CHWs participated in 5 or more intervention research phases. The scoping review found that CHWs are involved across the spectrum of research, including developing research questions, intervention design, participant recruitment, intervention implementation, data collection, data analysis, and results dissemination. CHW positionality as research partners varied greatly across studies, and they are not uniformly integrated within all stages of research. The majority of these studies employed a community based participatory research (CBPR) approach, and CBPR studies included CHWs as research partners in more phases of research relative to non-CBPR studies. This scoping review documents specific benefits from the inclusion of CHWs as partners in health intervention research and identifies strategies to engage CHWs as research partners and to ensure that CHW contributions to research are well-documented.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity Health WorkersHumansacademic-community partnershipscommunity health workershealth interventionintervention researchparticipatory research

Identifiers

PMID32612967
PMCPMC7308474

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.