ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024
Evaluation of a peer-led research best practices training for community health workers and promotoras.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Our work is recognized and we are prepared:" A qualitative evaluation of a peer-led research best practices training for community health workers and promotoras.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- "We Have a Ways to Go, but I Think You've Taken the Steps to Get Us There": Engaging Community Partners in Qualitative Analysis Using the RADaR Technique.International journal of qualitative methodsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Community health workers and promotoras (CHW/Ps) increasingly support research conducted in communities but receive variable or no training. We developed a culturally and linguistically tailored research best practices course for CHW/Ps that can be taken independently or in facilitated groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the facilitated training. Methods: CHW/Ps were recruited from communities and partners affiliated with study sites in Michigan, Florida, and California. They participated in virtual or in-person training facilitated by a peer in English or Spanish and then completed a survey about their abilities (i.e., knowledge and skills for participating in research-related work) and perceptions of the training. Linear regression analyses were used to examine differences in training experience across several factors. Results: A total of 394 CHW/Ps, mean age 41.6 ± 13.8 years, completed the training and survey ( Discussion: Most CHW/Ps rated the training positively and noted improved knowledge and skills for engaging in research-related work. Despite slight site differences, the training was well received, and CHW/Ps appreciated having a facilitator with experience working in community-based settings. This course offers a standard and scalable approach to training the CHW/P workforce. Future studies can examine its uptake and effect on research quality.
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.