ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Precarious low-wage work, marked by instability, limited protections, and high occupational risk, disproportionately affects Latine immigrant workers, contributing to chronic stress, poor health, and cardiovascular risk. In Arizona, sectors such as agriculture, hospitality, and domestic services expose workers to compounded work- and non-work-related stressors, amplified by right-to-work laws and anti-immigrant policies. Methods: Results: CHWs guided recruitment, retention, facilitation, and participatory data collection, ensuring cultural relevance and creating safe spaces for candid discussion. Strategic partnerships with community and academic partners and legal experts further strengthened intervention design and delivery. Pre-post surveys and semi-structured group reflections assessed changes in health outcomes, occupational self-efficacy, and perceptions about workplace wellbeing and advocacy for change in the labor conditions. Discussion: Findings underscore CHWs' critical role in fostering trust, amplifying community voices, and supporting participant empowerment. Hearts in Action offers evidence of feasibility for a CHW-led and worker-centered approach to improve workplace conditions and worker health, offering a model for integrating community perspectives, legal expertise, and public health strategies to promote wellbeing, advocacy, and structural change in the context of precarious labor.
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.