Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34981332›Full record

SynthesisMaternal and child health journal2022

Community Health Worker Impact on Knowledge, Antenatal Care, And Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Darcell Scharff, Kimberly R Enard, Donghua Tao, Gretta Strand, Rauta Yakubu, Victoria Cope

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Maternal and child health journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  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
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Darcell ScharffDepartment of Behavioral Science and Health Education, Saint Louis University College for Public Health and Social Justice, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, MO, USA. darcy.scharff@slu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5835-597X
Kimberly R EnardDepartment of Health Management and Policy, Saint Louis University, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Donghua TaoMedical Center Library, Saint Louis University, 1402 S. Grand Blvd, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Gretta StrandSt. Louis Children's Hospital, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Rauta YakubuDepartment of Health Management and Policy, Saint Louis University, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Victoria CopeMissouri Foundation for Health, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Saint Louis University · USMissouri Foundation for Health · USSt. Louis Children's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCommunity health worker (CHW) interventions have been shown to be effective in areas of maternal and child health (MCH), mostly in relation to infant and neonatal mortality. The specific aims of this review were to expand outcomes to include improving knowledge related to pregnancy and infant health and the receipt of antenatal care (ANC), along with birth outcomes. We also summarized the role, characteristics and activities of CHWs in interventions conducted in settings with demonstrated improvements in key MCH outcomes.

methodsArticles were retrieved from: PubMed, CINAHL, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2008 through 2018. We included evaluation studies that utilized CHWs as all or part of an intervention to improve outcomes, were printed in English, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

resultsInitial electronic database search identified 816 studies and 123 studies met inclusion criteria for full text review. The quality assessment resulted in 0 strong-, 19 moderate-, and 25 weak-rated studies. In most interventions, CHWs were a component of a larger intervention. The majority of the studies (n = 10) found that a CHW intervention can have a positive impact on outcomes. CHW interventions showed improvements in knowledge and ANC. When combined with clinical services, the interventions positively impacted birth outcomes. Most conducted home visits and utilized CHW that were members of the community. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: CHWs serve an important role as health educators conducting home visits as a member of the community they serve. They should also continue to collaborate with clinical providers to address MCH outcomes.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersPrenatal CareChildFemaleHumansInfantInfant HealthInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornParturitionPregnancyBirth outcomesCommunity health workersHealth educationSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID34981332
OpenAlexW4206794208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.