Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34641893›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2021

Community health workers at the dawn of a new era: 4. Programme financing.

Lizah Masis, Angela Gichaga, Tseday Zerayacob, Chunling Lu, 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 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Reducing inequities in access to postpartum hemorrhage prevention: Reframing advance distribution of misoprostol as a test case for health system responsiveness and adaptation.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  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

5 authors.

Lizah MasisFinancing Alliance for Health, Nairobi, Kenya.
Angela GichagaFinancing Alliance for Health, Nairobi, Kenya.
Tseday ZerayacobFinancing Alliance for Health, Nairobi, Kenya.
Chunling LuBrigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4780-9451
Henry B PerryDepartment of International Health, Health Systems Program, 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

backgroundThis is the fourth of our 11-paper supplement on "Community Health Workers at the Dawn of New Era". Here, we first make the case for investing in health programmes, second for investing in human resources for health, third for investing in primary healthcare (PHC) workers, and finally for investing in community health workers (CHWs).

methodsSearches of peer-reviewed journals and the grey literature were conducted with a focus on community health programme financing. The literature search was supplemented with a search of the grey literature for information about national health sector plans, community health strategies/policies, and costing information from databases of various countries' ministries of health, and finally a request for information from in-country partners.

resultsThe global shortage of human resources for health is projected to rise to 18 million health workers by 2030, with more acute shortages in Africa and South Asia. CHWs have an important role to play in mitigating this shortage because of their effectiveness (when properly trained and supported) and the feasibility of their deployment. Data are limited on the costs of current CHW programmes and how they compare to government and donor expenditures for PHC and for health services more broadly. However, available data from 10 countries in Africa indicate that the median per capita cost of CHW programmes is US$ 4.77 per year and US$ 2574 per CHW, and the median monthly salary of CHWs in these same countries is US$ 35 per month. For a subset of these countries for which spending for PHC is available, governments and donors spend 7.7 times more on PHC than on CHW programming, and 15.4 times more on all health expenditures. Even though donor funding for CHW programmes is a tiny portion of health-related donor support, most countries rely on donor support for financing their CHW programmes.

conclusionThe financing of national CHW programmes has been a critical element that has not received sufficient emphasis in the academic literature on CHW programmes. Increasing domestic government funding for CHW programmes is a priority. In order to ensure growth in funding for CHW programmes, it will be important to measure CHW programme expenditures and their relationship to expenditures for PHC and for all health-related expenditures.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersPrimary Health CareHealth PolicyHealth PromotionHumansWorkforceCommunity-based primary healthcareCommunity health worker programmesCommunity health workersPrimary healthcareSustainable Development GoalsUniversal Health Coverage

Identifiers

PMID34641893
PMCPMC8506106

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.