Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39694622›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2024

Changing power narratives: an exemplar case study on the professionalisation of community health workers in Liberia.

Anne Neumann, Marion Subah, Helene-Mari van der Westhuizen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Anne NeumannNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK anne.neumann@globaldigital.health.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-5506-678X
Marion SubahLiberia Country Office, Last Mile Health, Monrovia, Liberia.
Helene-Mari van der WesthuizenNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite their central role in achieving health equity and Universal Health Coverage, only a minority of community health workers (CHWs) is formally recognised as health workforce and receives a salary. Community health policies are formed within the power dynamics of global health practice. We argue that critical investigations of the power dynamics that influence the design of CHW programmes can contribute system-level insights to strengthen their roles.We present a national-level case study of the Liberian Community Health Assistant programme as an exemplar case of successfully introducing a nationwide CHW policy that professionalises CHWs. Using a theory of how power is exercised (Steven Lukes) for our analysis, we argue that Liberia's success in overcoming external funder push-back on the payment of CHWs was enabled by strong political commitment and (re-)claiming government authority in and outside of decision-making processes. Consensus-building across government departments strengthened the government's decision-making power. The availability and strategic use of suitable and contextualised evidence focused on the rights of CHWs allowed for proactive engagement with external funders' concerns. To draw on learnings from the experience of Liberia, we recommend looking beyond the common effectiveness-oriented narratives in academic literature that focus on CHW's functional role. By focussing on how power is exerted through policy negotiations around professionalisation, it could be possible to reframe conventional approaches to the role of CHW in other contexts as well.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersHealth PolicyHumansLiberiaProfessional RoleGlobal HealthHealth policyHealth systemsLiberia

Identifiers

PMID39694622
PMCPMC11667280

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.