ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Evaluating health service delivery frameworks for assessing community health worker performance in LMICs: a mixed-method systematic review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity health workers (CHWs) are essential to delivering primary healthcare, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where they extend critical services to underserved populations. Despite global recognition of their role in advancing Universal Health Coverage (UHC), efforts to comprehensively evaluate CHW performance through standardized, context-sensitive frameworks remain limited. Current frameworks vary widely in scope, methodology, and applicability, often lacking in comprehensive domains, indicators, and validation processes. This mixed-method systematic review aims to identify, analyze, and synthesize existing performance assessment frameworks for CHWs, focusing on their components, contextual applicability, strengths, and limitations in LMIC settings.
methodsThis mixed-method systematic review (MMSR) has been prepared according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Three electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus using a string of keywords shall be used to capture qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies published in English between 2015 and 2025. Eligible studies will focus on frameworks evaluating CHW performance in LMICs. Screening and selection will be conducted in Covidence software by two independent reviewers with a third reviewer resolving any discrepancies. The included studies will be assessed for quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A convergent segregated approach will be applied for quantitative and qualitative synthesis followed by their integration of evidence in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines. The review has been registered in the PROSPERO database. DISCUSSION: This review is expected to yield a comprehensive understanding of the frameworks used to assess CHW performance in LMICs, including common domains and indicators, variations across contexts, and gaps in current performance evaluation strategies. Findings will inform policymakers, program implementers, and researchers on the development or adaptation of more effective, evidence-based, and context-sensitive performance assessment frameworks for CHWs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024616947.
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.