The outreach worker role in an anticipatory care programme: A valuable resource for linking and supporting

Carver, Hannah; Douglas, Margaret; Tomlinson, Joy E.

doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.023

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Acting as ‘Patient Navigators’ [ 23 , 24 , 40 , 77 , 80 , 109 – 119 ], CHWs interpret health information and provide logistical support to patients accessing healthcare within a complex healthcare system. They also communicate health messages to community members [ 6 , 16 , 19 , 33 , 49 , 56 , 60 , 62 , 70 , 73 , 74 , 82 – 86 , 88 , 102 , 104 , 114 , 117 , 119 – 123 ], help patients to cope better with clinical conditions by providing psychosocial support [ 24 , 41 , 43 , 47 , 49 , 58 , 60 , 73 , 82 , 86 , 96 , 106 , 107 ], and serve as community representatives, providing a link between the community and health system [ 47 , 59 , 74 , 81 , 82 , 84 , 89 , 95 , 96 , 98 , 120 ]. Their role as a community representative entails conveying policy-related health messages to the community members and, in turn, reporting on community health needs and priorities to the health facilities they are linked to.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The service recipients of CHWs tend to vary with country income status (Supplemental File 3). In high-income countries, CHWs provide health services to ethnic minority and low-income populations within these countries [ 21 , 23 , 33 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 47 – 50 , 56 – 60 , 62 , 63 , 74 – 80 , 84 – 86 , 97 , 101 , 107 , 108 , 110 , 113 , 115 , 118 – 120 , 123 ]. The service recipients in these settings are usually individuals with non-communicable diseases such as cancers, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes [ 23 , 24 , 31 , 33 , 41 , 47 – 49 , 56 , 58 , 63 , 73 , 77 , 80 , 85 , 96 , 100 , 101 , 106 , 109 , 112 , 113 , 115 – 117 , 120 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Who is a community health worker? – a systematic review of definitions

Olaniran

Smith

Unkels

et al. 2017

Global Health Action

264

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Community health workers (CHWs) can play vital roles in increasing coverage of basic health services. However, there is a need for a systematic categorisation of CHWs that will aid common understanding among policy makers, programme planners, and researchers. Objective: To identify the common themes in the definitions and descriptions of CHWs that will aid delineation within this cadre and distinguish CHWs from other healthcare providers. Design: A systematic review of peer-reviewed papers and grey literature. Results: We identified 119 papers that provided definitions of CHWs in 25 countries across 7 regions. The review shows CHWs as paraprofessionals or lay individuals with an in-depth understanding of the community culture and language, have received standardised job-related training of a shorter duration than health professionals, and their primary goal is to provide culturally appropriate health services to the community. CHWs can be categorised into three groups by education and pre-service training. These are lay health workers (individuals with little or no formal education who undergo a few days to a few weeks of informal training), level 1 paraprofessionals (individuals with some form of secondary education and subsequent informal training), and level 2 paraprofessionals (individuals with some form of secondary education and subsequent formal training lasting a few months to more than a year). Lay health workers tend to provide basic health services as unpaid volunteers while level 1 paraprofessionals often receive an allowance and level 2 paraprofessionals tend to be salaried. Conclusions: This review provides a categorisation of CHWs that may be useful for health policy formulation, programme planning, and research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is a community health worker? – a systematic review of definitions

Olaniran

Smith

Unkels

et al. 2017

Global Health Action

264

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 90 selected peer-reviewed studies were set in: the USA (n = 60) , Canada (n = 9) [91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99], Australia (n = 8) [100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107], UK (n = 6) [108][109][110][111][112][113], New Zealand (n = 2) [114,115], Israel (n = 2) [116,117], Italy (n = 1) [118], Mexico (n = 1) [119], and Germany (n = 1) [120]. For the environmental scan survey, 45.0% of responses originated from Canada, 40.8% from Australia, 9.4% from others countries (e.g., Ireland, UK, USA, Netherlands, Italy, Israel, Switzerland, Cameroon, India, Indonesia, Sudan) and 4.8% were missing country information [16].…”

Section: Organizational Innovation Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Typology of organizational innovation components: building blocks to improve access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations

Smithman

Descôteaux

Dionne

et al. 2020

Int J Equity Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Achieving equity of access to primary healthcare requires organizations to implement innovations tailored to the specific needs and abilities of vulnerable populations. However, designing pro-vulnerable innovations is challenging without knowledge of the range of possible innovations tailored to vulnerable populations’ needs. To better support decision-makers, we aimed to develop a typology of pro-vulnerable organizational innovation components – akin to “building blocks” that could be combined in different ways into new complex innovations or added to existing organizational processes to improve access to primary healthcare. Methods To develop the typology, we used data from a previously conducted a) scoping review (2000–2014, searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, citation tracking, n = 90 articles selected), and b) environmental scan (2014, online survey via social networks, n = 240 innovations). We conducted a typological analysis of the data. Our initial typology yielded 48 components, classified according to accessibility dimensions from the Patient-Centred Accessibility Framework. The initial typology was then field-tested for relevance and usability by health system stakeholders and refined from 2014 to 2018 (e.g., combined similar components, excluded non-organizational components). Results The selected articles (n = 90 studies) and survey responses (n = 240 innovations) were mostly from the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK. Innovations targeted populations with various vulnerabilities (e.g., low income, chronic illness, Indigenous, homeless, migrants, refugees, ethnic minorities, uninsured, marginalized groups, mental illness, etc.). Our final typology had 18 components of organizational innovations, which principally addressed Availability & Accommodation (7/18), Approachability (6/18), and Acceptability (3/18). Components included navigation & information, community health worker, one-stop-shop, case management, group visits, defraying costs, primary healthcare brokerage, etc. Conclusions This typology offers a comprehensive menu of potential components that can help inform the design of pro-vulnerable organizational innovations. Component classification according to the accessibility dimensions of the Patient-Centred Accessibility Framework is useful to help target access needs. Components can be combined into complex innovations or added to existing organizational processes to meet the access needs of vulnerable populations in specific contexts.

show abstract

“… Access to PHC , including: healthcare access for underserved community groups in the UK [ 47 , 50 , 51 , 55 , 61 , 75 ]; guiding Roma minority groups towards PHC services in Hungary [ 74 ]; CHWs improving care for elderly immigrants in the Netherlands [ 41 ]; and enabling dialogue with health professionals for people living with asthma in Ireland [ 48 ]. Improved access was facilitated through direct referral [ 51 ] or health literacy interventions by CHWs [ 47 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In McWilliams et al [ 64 ], support was provided to patients with cancer care. CHWs in Carver et al [ 61 ] provided one-on-one support to patients before and after their health checks. Finally, CHWs in Gale et al [ 62 ] provided informational and emotional support to pregnant women.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of community health workers in primary healthcare in the WHO-EU region: a scoping review

Van Iseghem,

Jacobs,

Vanden Bossche

et al. 2023

Int J Equity Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Existing evidence on the role of community health workers (CHWs) in primary healthcare originates primarily from the United States, Canada and Australia, and from low- and middle-income countries. Little is known about the role of CHWs in primary healthcare in European countries. This scoping review aimed to contribute to filling this gap by providing an overview of literature reporting on the involvement of CHWs in primary healthcare in WHO-EU countries since 2001 with a focus on the role, training, recruitment and remuneration. Methods This systematic scoping review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, extension for Scoping Reviews. All published peer-reviewed literature indexed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases from Jan 2001 to Feb 2023 were reviewed for inclusion. Included studies were screened on title, abstract and full text according to predetermined eligibility criteria. Studies were included if they were conducted in the WHO-EU region and provided information regarding the role, training, recruitment or remuneration of CHWs. Results Forty studies were included in this review, originating from eight countries. The involvement of CHWs in the WHO-EU regions was usually project-based, except in the United Kingdom. A substantial amount of literature with variability in the terminology used to describe CHWs, the areas of involvement, recruitment, training, and remuneration strategies was found. The included studies reported a trend towards recruitment from within the communities with some form of training and payment of CHWs. A salient finding was the social embeddedness of CHWs in the communities they served. Their roles can be classified into one or a combination of the following: educational; navigational and supportive. Conclusion Future research projects involving CHWs should detail their involvement and elaborate on CHWs’ role, training and recruitment procedures. In addition, further research on CHW programmes in the WHO-EU region is necessary to prepare for their integration into the broader national health systems.

show abstract

The outreach worker role in an anticipatory care programme: A valuable resource for linking and supporting

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

Who is a community health worker? – a systematic review of definitions

Who is a community health worker? – a systematic review of definitions

Typology of organizational innovation components: building blocks to improve access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations

The role of community health workers in primary healthcare in the WHO-EU region: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About