Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41570010›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2026

Costs and cost-effectiveness of community health worker programs on reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health in low- and middle-income countries (2015-2024): A scoping review.

Madelyn Miyares, Linnea Stansert Katzen, Kelsey Vaughan, Cleo Baskin, Madeleine Ballard, Maryse Kok, Ariwame Jimenez, M Matias Iberico, Josef Ernst, Jessica Cook and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

25 authors.

Madelyn MiyaresDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8293-505X
Linnea Stansert KatzenCommunity Health Impact Coalition, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9864-6488
Kelsey VaughanBang for Buck Consulting, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0603-7368
Cleo BaskinCommunity Health Impact Coalition, London, United Kingdom.
Madeleine BallardCommunity Health Impact Coalition, London, United Kingdom.
Maryse KokDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0889-8663
Ariwame JimenezCompañeros En Salud, Ángel Albino Corzo, México.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3602-2853
M Matias IbericoCompañeros En Salud, Ángel Albino Corzo, México.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9514-0281
Josef ErnstCommunity Health Impact Coalition, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3416-9154
Jessica CookPartners in Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Angele Bienvenue IshimweTIP Global Health, Kigali, Rwanda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8513-9172
Lily MartinNYU Health Sciences Library, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0670-866X
Patrick KawooyaNama Community Wellness Center, Mukono, Uganda.
Zeus ArandaCompañeros En Salud, Ángel Albino Corzo, México.
Molly MantusLast Mile Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Meghan Bruce KumarDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Karen E FinneganDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Sandra MudhuneLwala Community Alliance, Rongo, Kenya.
Mardieh DennisLast Mile Health, Monrovia, Liberia.
Daniel PalazuelosPartners in Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Dickson Nansima MbeweKasungu District Hospital, Kasungu, Malawi.
Michee NshimayesuUniversity of Global Health Equity, Kigali, Rwanda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8127-0421
Shobhana NagrajDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0045-9896
Rachel VreemanDepartment of Global Health and Department of Pediatrics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States of America.
James O'DonovanCommunity Health Impact Coalition, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community Health Workers (CHWs) are vital in delivering primary health care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To inform their broader rollout, this study updates a 2015 review, critically examining the costs, cost-effectiveness and affordability of reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) CHW programs in LMICs. A scoping review was conducted using ten databases and grey literature, covering studies published between August 2015 and July 2024. Search terms related to "Community Health Workers" and "Economic Evaluations" were used. Studies were screened via Covidence software based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data on study methodology, costs, and outcomes were extracted, tabulated in Microsoft Excel, and analysed. Across 53 studies (21 about reproductive health, maternal and newborn care and 32 child health focused), covering 161 scenarios, the most common cost metrics for CHW-led interventions were cost per beneficiary (ranging from $0.02 to $1,547), cost per capita (ranging from $0.09 to $20.25), and cost per consultation (ranging from $0.26 to $52.91). Of 100 scenarios that assessed cost-effectiveness, the majority concluded CHWs were cost-effective, most frequently when compared against an alternative service or delivery modality, such as facility-based care, or the no-longer widely accepted threshold of a country's gross domestic product per capita. Few studies assessed the affordability of CHW programs for government and/or partners. Evidence suggests that CHWs are often more cost-effective than alternative service or delivery modalities, particularly for child health. The evidence is however constrained by the heterogeneity of methods and reporting standards. To best guide future implementation of CHW programs, future research should focus on whether these interventions are affordable to governments and/or partners.

Identifiers

PMID41570010
PMCPMC12826514

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.