ArticleHealth services insights2025
Amplifying Community Health Worker Voices to Examine the Implementation and Scaling of a Community Health Program: A Qualitative Study in the Philippines.
Article in Health services insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Scaling community-based health programs can contribute to efforts to achieve universal health coverage. Implementers of community-based health programs, such as community health workers (CHWs), hold valuable insights and experiences that can inform how these programs scale up and out. Objectives: (1) To assess implementer experiences and perceptions of a community-based health program delivered by CHWs that underwent recent changes to broaden its programing and reach (ie, scaling up); and (2) to describe facilitators and barriers to the implementation of this community-based health program to inform subsequent scaling out. Methods: In April 2023, an evaluation of an NGO-led CHW program was conducted with program implementers across 6 geographic regions in Negros Oriental, Philippines (n = 64 semi-structured interviews). Data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive analysis, informed by the Medical Research Council's framework for process evaluation of complex interventions. Ethics approval was provided by the University of Waterloo Research Ethics Board (Certificate #: 44828). Results: CHWs perceived that the scaled up version of the program was more useful and impactful, given its expanded reach and provision of basic treatment; however, new program components also required significant time, effort, and strategy to implement which created new opportunity costs for CHWs. Implementation of the scaled up version of the program was facilitated via clear communication structures and supportive group training spaces. Pre-existing roles and social networks held by CHWs further facilitated the implementation of the scaled up version of the program. Overall, new individual-level and community-based strategies were leveraged by CHWs to implement the scaled up program, and participants described facilitators (eg, expanded reach) and barriers (eg, increased time and effort) that influenced program implementation. Conclusion: This study contributes insights into how individuals involved in the scaling of a community-based health program may experience this process.
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.