SynthesisGlobal health action2024
The effectiveness of rural community health workers in improving health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Global health action, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multiphase Implementation of Ring Treatment: A Community-Engaged Control Program for T. Solium taeniasis/cysticercosis in Northern Peru.Research square · 2026Article
- Health Education Modalities and Influencing Factors in Rural Philippine Communities: A Mixed-Methods Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Savoring the service: A qualitative study of Latine community health workers' health promotion efforts.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Can mHealth improve migrant wellness during public health emergencies? A community-engaged qualitative study during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC digital health · 2026Article
- The effectiveness of community health worker training, equipping, and deployment in reducing COVID-19 infections and deaths in rural Western Kenya: A comparison of two counties.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRural community health workers [CHWs] play a critical role in improving health outcomes during non-pandemic times, but evidence on their effectiveness during the COVID-19 pandemic is limited. There is a need to focus on rural CHWs and rural health systems as they have limited material and human resources rendering them more vulnerable than urban health systems to severe disruptions during pandemics.
objectivesThis systematic review aims to describe and appraise the current evidence on the effectiveness of rural CHWs in improving access to health services and health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in low-and middle-income countries [LMICs].
methodsWe searched electronic databases for articles published from 2020 to 2023 describing rural CHW interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs. We extracted data on study characteristics, interventions, outcome measures, and main results. We conducted a narrative synthesis of key results.
resultsFifteen studies from 10 countries met our inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were from Asia [10 of 15 studies]. Study designs varied and included descriptive and analytical studies. The evidence suggested that rural CHW interventions led to increased household access to health services and may be effective in improving COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 health outcomes. Overall, however, the quality of evidence was poor due to methodological limitations; 14 of 15 studies had a high risk of bias.
conclusionRural CHWs may have improved access to health services and health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs but more rigorous studies are needed during future pandemics to evaluate their effectiveness in improving health outcomes in different settings and to assess appropriate support required to ensure their impact at scale.
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.