↓ Skip to main content

Costs and cost-effectiveness of community health workers: evidence from a literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
24 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
498 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Costs and cost-effectiveness of community health workers: evidence from a literature review
Published in
Human Resources for Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12960-015-0070-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelsey Vaughan, Maryse C Kok, Sophie Witter, Marjolein Dieleman

Abstract

This study sought to synthesize and critically review evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness of community health worker (CHW) programmes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to inform policy dialogue around their role in health systems. From a larger systematic review on effectiveness and factors influencing performance of close-to-community providers, complemented by a supplementary search in PubMed, we did an exploratory review of a subset of papers (32 published primary studies and 4 reviews from the period January 2003-July 2015) about the costs and cost-effectiveness of CHWs. Studies were assessed using a data extraction matrix including methodological approach and findings. Existing evidence suggests that, compared with standard care, using CHWs in health programmes can be a cost-effective intervention in LMICs, particularly for tuberculosis, but also - although evidence is weaker - in other areas such as reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) and malaria. Notwithstanding important caveats about the heterogeneity of the studies and their methodological limitations, findings reinforce the hypothesis that CHWs may represent, in some settings, a cost-effective approach for the delivery of essential health services. The less conclusive evidence about the cost-effectiveness of CHWs in other areas may reflect that these areas have been evaluated less (and less rigorously) than others, rather than an actual difference in cost-effectiveness in the various service delivery areas or interventions. Methodologically, areas for further development include how to properly assess costs from a societal perspective rather than just through the lens of the cost to government and accounting for non-tangible costs and non-health benefits commonly associated with CHWs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 498 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 485 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 102 20%
Researcher 75 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 11%
Student > Bachelor 33 7%
Student > Postgraduate 29 6%
Other 107 21%
Unknown 97 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 131 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 77 15%
Social Sciences 60 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 26 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 13 3%
Other 71 14%
Unknown 120 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 26 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,953,440
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#190
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,439
of 276,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#4
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 276,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.