↓ Skip to main content

How equitable are community health worker programmes and which programme features influence equity of community health worker services? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 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
How equitable are community health worker programmes and which programme features influence equity of community health worker services? A systematic review
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3043-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosalind McCollum, Woedem Gomez, Sally Theobald, Miriam Taegtmeyer

Abstract

Community health workers (CHWs) are uniquely placed to link communities with the health system, playing a role in improving the reach of health systems and bringing health services closer to hard-to-reach and marginalised groups. A systematic review was conducted to determine the extent of equity of CHW programmes and to identify intervention design factors which influence equity of health outcomes. In accordance with our published protocol, we systematically searched eight databases from 2004 to 2014 for quantitative and qualitative studies which assessed access, utilisation, quality or community empowerment following introduction of a CHW programme according to equity stratifiers (place of residence, gender, socio-economic position and disability). Thirty four papers met inclusion criteria. A thematic framework was applied and data extracted and managed, prior to charting and thematic analysis. To our knowledge this is the first systematic review that describes the extent of equity within CHW programmes and identifies CHW intervention design features which influence equity. CHW programmes were found to promote equity of access and utilisation for community health by reducing inequities relating to place of residence, gender, education and socio-economic position. CHWs can also contribute towards more equitable uptake of referrals at health facility level. There was no clear evidence for equitable quality of services provided by CHWs and limited information regarding the role of the CHW in generating community empowerment to respond to social determinants of health. Factors promoting greater equity of CHW services include recruitment of most poor community members as CHWs, close proximity of services to households, pre-existing social relationship with CHW, provision of home-based services, free service delivery, targeting of poor households, strengthened referral to facility, sensitisation and mobilisation of community. However, if CHW programmes are not well planned some of the barriers faced by clients at health facility level can replicate at community level. CHWs promote equitable access to health promotion, disease prevention and use of curative services at household level. However, care must be taken by policymakers and implementers to take into account factors which can influence the equity of services during planning and implementation of CHW programmes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 252 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 20%
Researcher 44 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 7%
Student > Postgraduate 15 6%
Other 53 21%
Unknown 35 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 21%
Social Sciences 43 17%
Environmental Science 7 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 55 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 18 June 2016.
All research outputs
#684,231
of 16,617,431 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#702
of 11,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,500
of 268,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,617,431 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 268,776 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them