Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34641901›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2021

Community health workers at the dawn of a new era: 10. Programme performance and its assessment.

Maryse Kok, Lauren Crigler, David Musoke, Madeleine Ballard, Steve Hodgins, Henry B Perry

Open access · goldAbstract 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 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Community health workers at the dawn of a new era.Health research policy and systems · 2021
    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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Maryse KokDepartment of Global Health, KIT Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0889-8663
Lauren CriglerCrigler Consulting, LLC, Hillsborough, NC, USA.
David MusokeDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Madeleine BallardCommunity Health Impact Coalition, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0107-4047
Steve HodginsSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8365-3311
Henry B PerryDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. hperry2@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0561-0492
Johns Hopkins University · USMakerere University · UGMount Sinai Health System · USRoyal Tropical Institute · NLUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundWhile the evidence supporting the effectiveness of community health worker (CHW) programmes is substantial, there is also considerable evidence that many of these programmes have notable weaknesses that need to be addressed in order for them to reach their full potential. Thus, considerations about CHW programme performance and its assessment must be taken into account as the importance of these programmes is becoming more widely appreciated. In this paper, the tenth in our 11-paper series, "Community health workers at the dawn of a new era", we address CHW programme performance and how it is assessed from a systems perspective.

methodsThe paper builds on the 2014 CHW Reference Guide, a compendium of case studies of 29 national CHW programmes, the 2018 WHO guideline on health policy and system support to optimize CHW programmes, and scientific studies on CHW programme performance published in the past 5 years.

resultsThe paper provides an overview of existing frameworks that are useful for assessing the performance of CHW programmes, with a specific focus on how individual CHW performance and community-level outcomes can be measured. The paper also reviews approaches that have been taken to assess CHW programme performance, from programme monitoring using the routine health information system to national assessments using quantitative and/or qualitative study designs and assessment checklists. The paper also discusses contextual factors that influence CHW programme performance, and reflects upon gaps and needs for the future with regard to assessment of CHW programme performance.

conclusionAssessments of CHW programme performance can have various approaches and foci according to the programme and its context. Given the fact that CHW programmes are complex entities and part of health systems, their assessment ideally needs to be based on data derived from a mix of reliable sources. Assessments should be focused not only on effectiveness (what works) but also on contextual factors and enablers (how, for whom, under what circumstances). Investment in performance assessment is instrumental for continually innovating, upgrading, and improving CHW programmes at scale. Now is the time for new efforts in implementation research for strengthening CHW programming.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersHealth PolicyGovernment ProgramsHumansQualitative ResearchCommunity health workersMonitoringPerformancePrimary healthcare

Identifiers

PMID34641901
PMCPMC8506096
OpenAlexW3206479284

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.