ArticleGlobal health action2022
Lessons from an eight-country community health data harmonization collaborative.
Article in Global health action, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-designing PROFESS: a community health worker support framework to strengthen engagement in TB and HIV care in Madagascar.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- How Can Community Data Be Leveraged to Advance Primary Health Care? A Scoping Review of Community-Based Health Information Systems.Global health, science and practice · 2024Article
- Harmonising electronic health records for reproducible research: challenges, solutions and recommendations from a UK-wide COVID-19 research collaboration.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Comparing two data collection methods to track vital events in maternal and child health via community health workers in rural Nepal.Population health metrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity health workers (CHWs) are individuals who are trained and equipped to provide essential health services to their neighbors and have increased access to healthcare in communities worldwide for more than a century. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) Guideline on Health Policy and System Support to Optimize Community Health Worker Programmes reveals important gaps in the evidentiary certainty about which health system design practices lead to quality care. Routine data collection across countries represents an important, yet often untapped, opportunity for exploratory data analysis and comparative implementation science. However, epidemiological indicators must be harmonized and data pooled to better leverage and learn from routine data collection.
methodsThis article describes a data harmonization and pooling Collaborative led by the organizations of the Community Health Impact Coalition, a network of health practitioners delivering community-based healthcare in dozens of countries across four WHO regions.
objectivesThe goals of the Collaborative project are to; (i) enable new opportunities for cross-site learning; (ii) use positive and negative outlier analysis to identify, test, and (if helpful) propagate design practices that lead to quality care; and (iii) create a multi-country 'brain trust' to reinforce data and health information systems across sites.
resultsThis article outlines the rationale and methods used to establish a data harmonization and pooling Collaborative, early findings, lessons learned, and directions for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.