Problem, research strategy, and findings: Supportive built environments for walking are linked to higher rates of walking and physical activity, but little is known about this relationship for socioeconomically disadvantaged (e.g., low-income and racial/ethnic minority) populations. We review 17 articles and find that most show that the built environment has weaker effects on walking and physical activity for disadvantaged than advantaged groups. Those who lived in supportive built environments walked more and were more physically active than those who did not, but the effect was about twice as large for advantaged groups. We see this difference because disadvantaged groups walked more in unsupportive built environments and less in supportive built environments, though the latter appears more influential. Takeaway for practice: Defining walkability entirely in built environment terms may fail to account for important social and individual/household characteristics and other non–built environment factors that challenge disadvantaged groups, including fear of crime and lack of social support. Planners must be sensitive to these findings and to community concerns about gentrification and displacement in the face of planned built environment improvements that may benefit more advantaged populations. We recommend five planning responses: Recognize that the effects of the built environment may vary by socioeconomics; use holistic approaches to improve walkability; expand walkability definitions to address a range of social and physical barriers; partner across agencies, disciplines, and professions; and evaluate interventions in different socioeconomic environments.

These findings document improvement in both clinical and social health indicators for Mexican Americans in a farmworker community when a promotora model is used to provide and facilitate culturally relevant support for diabetes self-management practices.

The Community Health Worker model is recognized nationally as a means to address glaring inequities in the burden of adverse health conditions that exist among specific population groups in the United States. This study explored Arizona CHW involvement in advocacy beyond the individual patient level into the realm of advocating for community level change as a mechanism to reduce the structural underpinnings of health disparities. A survey of CHWs in Arizona found that CHWs advocate at local, state and federal political levels as well as within health and social service agencies and business. Characteristics significantly associated with advocacy include employment in a not for profit organization, previous leadership training, and a work environment that allows flexible work hours and the autonomy to start new projects at work. Intrinsic characteristics of CHWs associated with advocacy include their belief that they can influence community decisions, self perception that they are leaders in the community, and knowledge of who to talk to in their community to make change. Community-level advocacy has been identified as a core CHW function and has the potential to address structural issues such as poverty, employment, housing, and discrimination. Agencies utilizing the CHW model could encourage community advocacy by providing a flexible working environment, ongoing leadership training, and opportunities to collaborate with both veteran CHWs and local community leaders. Further research is needed to understand the nature and impact of CHW community advocacy activities on both systems change and health outcomes.

No abstract

Community Health Workers (CHWs) have gained national recognition for their role in addressing health disparities and are increasingly integrated into the health care delivery system. There is a lack of consensus, however, regarding empirical evidence on the impact of CHW interventions on health outcomes. In this paper, we present results from the 2010 National Community Health Worker Advocacy Survey (NCHWAS) in an effort to strengthen a generalized understanding of the CHW profession that can be integrated into ongoing efforts to improve the health care delivery system. Results indicate that regardless of geographical location, work setting, and demographic characteristics, CHWs generally share similar professional characteristics, training preparation, and job activities. CHWs are likely to be female, representative of the community they serve, and to work in community health centers, clinics, community-based organizations, and health departments. The most common type of training is on-the-job and conference training. Most CHWs work with clients, groups, other CHWs and less frequently community leaders to address health issues, the most common of which are chronic disease, prevention and health care access. Descriptions of CHW activities documented in the survey demonstrate that CHWs apply core competencies in a synergistic manner in an effort to assure that their clients get the services they need. NCHWAS findings suggest that over the past 50 years, the CHW field has become standardized in response to the unmet needs of their communities. In research and practice, the field would benefit from being considered a health profession rather than an intervention.