Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33692894›Full record

ReviewJournal of global health2021

Compensation models for community health workers: Comparison of legal frameworks across five countries.

Madeleine Ballard, Carey Westgate, Rebecca Alban, Nandini Choudhury, Rehan Adamjee, Ryan Schwarz, Julia Bishop, Meg McLaughlin, David Flood, Karen Finnegan and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05211869 (T1DTechCHW), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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.

NCT05211869 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

T1DTechCHW: Enhancing the Community Health Worker (CHW) Model to Promote Diabetes Technology Use in Young Adults From Underrepresented Minority Groups (YA-URMs) With Type 1 Diabetes (T1D)

TypeinterventionalSponsorAlbert Einstein College of MedicineRan2022 to 2025Enrolled119ConditionsDiabetes, Type 1 Diabetes, Young Adult, Diabetes MellitusArmsT1D-CATCH
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

15 authors.

Madeleine BallardCommunity Health Impact Coalition, New York, New York, USA.
Carey WestgateCommunity Health Impact Coalition, New York, New York, USA.
Rebecca AlbanVillageReach, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Nandini ChoudhuryDepartment of Global Health and Health System Design, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Rehan AdamjeeVITAL Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan.
Ryan SchwarzPossible, New York, New York, USA.
Julia BishopOne to One Africa, Cape Town, South Africa.
Meg McLaughlinTHINKMD, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
David FloodWuqu' Kawoq, Santiago Sacatepéquez, Sacatepéquez, Guatemala.
Karen FinneganPIVOT, Ranomafana, Madagascar.
Ash RogersLwala Community Alliance, Rongo, Kenya.
Helen OlsenMedic Mobile, San Francisco, California, USA.
Ari JohnsonMuso, Bamako, Mali.
Daniel PalazuelosDivision of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jennifer SchechterIntegrate Health, Lome, Togo.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the life-saving work they perform, community health workers (CHWs) have long been subject to global debate about their remuneration. There is now, however, an emerging consensus that CHWs should be paid. As the discussion evolves from

methodsThis study examines the legal framework on CHW compensation in five countries: Brazil, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa. In order to map the characteristics of each approach, a review of the regulatory framework governing CHW compensation in each country was undertaken. Law firms in each of the five countries were engaged to support the identification and interpretation of relevant legal documents. To guide the search and aid in the creation of uniform country profiles, a standardized set of questions was developed, covering: (i) legal requirements for CHW compensation, (ii) CHW compensation mechanisms, and (iii) CHW legal protections and benefits.

resultsThe five countries profiled represent possible archetypes for CHW compensation: Brazil (public), Ghana (volunteer-based), Nigeria (private), Rwanda (cooperatives with performance based incentives) and South Africa (hybrid public/private). Advantages and disadvantages of each model with respect to (i) CHWs, in terms of financial protection, and (ii) the health system, in terms of ease of implementation, are outlined.

conclusionsWhile a strong legal framework does not necessarily translate into high-quality implementation of compensation practices, it is the first necessary step. Certain approaches to CHW compensation - particularly public-sector or models with public sector wage floors - best institutionalize recommended CHW protections. Political will and long-term financing often remain challenges; removing ecosystem barriers - such as multilateral and bilateral restrictions on the payment of salaries - can help governments institutionalize CHW payment.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersEcosystemHumansMotivationRemunerationVolunteers

Identifiers

PMID33692894
PMCPMC7916445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.