↓ Skip to main content

Do State Community Health Worker Laws Align with Best Available Evidence?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Do State Community Health Worker Laws Align with Best Available Evidence?
Published in
Journal of Community Health, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10900-015-0098-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colleen Barbero, Siobhan Gilchrist, Jamie F. Chriqui, Molly A. Martin, Ashley Wennerstrom, Jennifer VanderVeur, Kim Prewitt, J. Nell Brownstein

Abstract

Community health workers (CHWs) are expected to improve patient care and population health while reducing health care costs. Law is a tool states are using to build a supportive infrastructure for the CHW workforce. This study assessed the extent existing state law pertaining to the CHW workforce aligned with best available evidence. We used the previously developed Quality and Impact of Component (QuIC) Evidence Assessment method to identify and prioritize those components that could comprise an evidence-informed CHW policy at the state level. We next assessed the extent codified statutes and regulations in effect as of December 31, 2014 for the 50 states and D.C. included the components identified in the evidence assessment. Fourteen components of an evidence-informed CHW policy were identified; eight had best, three had promising, and three had emerging evidence bases. Codified law in 18 states (35.3 % of 51) pertained to the CHW workforce. Fifteen of these 18 states authorized at least one of the 14 components from the evidence assessment (maximum: nine components, median: 2.5). The most frequently authorized component was a defined scope of practice for CHWs (authorized by eight states) followed by a standard core competency curriculum and inclusion of CHWs in multidisciplinary health care teams (each authorized by six states). States could consider the components presented in this article when developing new or strengthening existing law.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2018.
All research outputs
#6,530,305
of 24,727,020 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#385
of 1,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,098
of 284,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#10
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,727,020 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.