Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34641886›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2021

Community health workers at the dawn of a new era: 1. Introduction: tensions confronting large-scale CHW programmes.

Stephen Hodgins, Maryse Kok, David Musoke, Simon Lewin, Lauren Crigler, Karen LeBan, Henry B Perry

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

2 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

7 authors.

Stephen HodginsSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8365-3311
Maryse KokDepartment of Global Health, KIT Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0889-8663
David MusokeDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Simon LewinNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo Town, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7521-9515
Lauren CriglerCrigler Consulting, LLC, Hillsborough, NC, United States of America.
Karen LeBanIndependent Consultant, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Henry B PerryHealth Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. hperry2@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0561-0492

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ID OPP 1197181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity health worker (CHW) programmes are again receiving more attention in global health, as reflected in important recent WHO guidance. However, there is a risk that current CHW programme efforts may result in disappointing performance if those promoting and delivering them fail to learn from past efforts. This is the first of a series of 11 articles for a supplement entitled "Community Health Workers at the Dawn of a New Era".

methodsDrawing on lessons from case studies of large well-established CHW programmes, published literature, and the authors' experience, the paper highlights major issues that need to be acknowledged to design and deliver effective CHW programmes at large scale. The paper also serves as an introduction to a set of articles addressing these issues in detail.

resultsThe article highlights the diversity and complexity of CHW programmes, and offers insights to programme planners, policymakers, donors, and others to inform development of more effective programmes. The article proposes that be understood as actors within community health system(s) and examines five tensions confronting large-scale CHW programmes; the first two tensions concern the role of the CHW, and the remaining three, broader strategic issues: 1) What kind of an actor is the CHW? A lackey or a liberator? Provider of clinical services or health promoter? 2) Lay versus professional? 3) Government programme at scale or nongovernmental organization-led demonstration project? 4) Standardized versus tailored to context? 5) Vertical versus horizontal?

conclusionCHWs can play a vital role in primary healthcare, but multiple conditions need to be met for them to reach their full potential.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersPrimary Health CareDelivery of Health CareGlobal HealthHumansCommunity healthCommunity health worker programmesCommunity health workersHealth systemsPrimary healthcare

Identifiers

PMID34641886
PMCPMC8506102

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.