Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40200978›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2025

Democratizing care to care for democracy: community care workers and anti-racist public health.

Raeghn Draper, Eric Reinhart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Raeghn DraperThe CHAAD Project, Chicago, IL 60612, United States.
Eric ReinhartDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, United States.

Funding

Post-Graduate Research Training Aligned with the NIMH Strategic PlanR25MH115855 · NIMH · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI FLEMING, MICHAEL F., GOULDING, EVAN H. · 2019 to 2023
$973k
NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH115855
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The organization of care in the United States reflects a longstanding prioritization of medical interventions over broader social support systems. This has contributed to widening racial and class inequalities alongside poor health outcomes, weakened communities, and growing social isolation that has created fertile ground for rising authoritarianism. Following on Roy, Hamilton, and Chokshi (2024), who argue for the necessity of addressing the interconnected areas of capital, care, and culture to rebuild US public health, we outline how public investment in community care worker systems can address each of these areas by strengthening their synergistic overlaps and reframing the function of care in society. By recruiting residents of disinvested communities into career positions as publicly employed care workers in their own neighborhoods, such a program would implement a genuinely anti-racist model of public health. This approach is rooted in training and properly compensating members of disenfranchised communities to care for one another rather than perpetuating classist and racist models of care in which reliance on external actors is presumed necessary. By insisting on policies that support the essential interpersonal and political-economic functions of care as public infrastructure, care can obtain a collective ethical and spiritual significance beyond its material effects alone. Implementing community care programs designed to reanimate care in this way could not only dramatically improve health but also revitalize the twinned projects of American democracy and racial equality in a period during which both are under intensifying threat.

Indexed as

anti-racismauthoritarianismcommunity care workersde-medicalizationdemocracypublic healthsocial care

Identifiers

PMID40200978
PMCPMC11977331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.