Introduction: The objective of this observational, cross-sectional study was to identify, document, and assess the progress made to date in implementing various processes involved in statewide community health worker (CHW) workforce development initiatives.Methods: From September 2017 to December 2020, we developed and applied a conceptual model of processes involved in implementing statewide CHW initiatives. One or more outputs were identified for each model process and assessed across the 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico using peer-reviewed and gray literature available as of September 2020.Results: Twelve statewide CHW workforce development processes were identified, and 21 outputs were assessed. We found an average of eight processes implemented per state, with seven states implementing all 12 processes. As of September 2020, 45 states had a multi-stakeholder CHW coalition and 31 states had a statewide CHW organization. In 20 states CHWs were included in Medicaid Managed Care Organizations or Health Plans. We found routine monitoring of statewide CHW employment in six states.Discussion: Stakeholders have advanced statewide CHW workforce development initiatives using the processes reflected in our conceptual model. Our results could help to inform future CHW initiative design, measurement, monitoring, and evaluation efforts, especially at the state level.
BackgroundProfessional certification of community health workers (CHWs) is a debated topic. Although intended to promote CHWs, certification may have unintended impacts given the grassroots nature of the workforce. As such, both intended effects and unintended adverse effects should be carefully evaluated. However, there is a lack of published literature describing such effective evaluations with a robust methodology. In this methods paper, we describe a key component of evaluating CHW certification in Massachusetts-the Massachusetts CHW Workforce Survey.MethodsDesign of the surveys was informed by a program theory framework that delineated both positive and negative potential impacts of Massachusetts CHW certification on CHWs and CHW employers. Using this framework, we developed measures of interest and preliminary CHW and CHW employer surveys. To validate and refine the surveys, we conducted cognitive interviews with CHWs and CHW employers. We then finalized survey tools with input from state and national stakeholders, CHWs, and CHW employers. Our sample consisted of three frames based on where CHWs are most likely to be employed in Massachusetts: acute care hospitals, community-based organizations, and ambulatory care health centers, primarily community health centers and federally qualified health centers. We then undertook extensive outreach efforts to determine whether each organization employed CHWs and to obtain CHW and CHW employer contact information. Our statistical analysis of the data utilized inverse probability score weighting accounting for organizational, site, and individual response.Anticipated resultsWave one of the survey was administered in 2016 prior to launch of Massachusetts CHW certification and wave two in 2021. We report descriptive statistics of the three sample frames and response rates of each survey for each wave. Further, we describe select anticipated results related to certification, including outcomes of the program theory framework.ConclusionsThe Massachusetts CHW Workforce Survey is the culmination of 5 years of effort to evaluate the impact of CHW certification in Massachusetts. Our comprehensive description of our methodology addresses an important gap in CHW research literature. The rigorous design, administration, and analysis of our surveys ensure our findings are robust, valid, and replicable, which can be leveraged by others evaluating the CHW workforce.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.