MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124024507 · doi:10.1353/hpu.2015.0062

Characteristics of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Community Health Worker Programs: A Systematic Review

2015· review· en· W2124024507 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nadia Islam, Jennifer Zanowiak, Lindsey Riley, Smiti Nadkarni, Simona C. Kwon, Chau Trinh‐Shevrin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionYork University
KeywordsPacific islandersIntervention (counseling)Ethnic groupCommunity healthAsian americansMedicineHealth equityCommunity health workersGerontologyEnvironmental healthFamily medicineGeographyNursingPublic healthPolitical sciencePopulationHealth services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community health workers (CHWs) are frontline health workers who often serve socially and linguistically isolated populations, including Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AA and NHPI) communities in the United States (U.S.) and U.S. territories. We conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature to assess the characteristics of CHW programs for AA and NHPI communities in the U.S. and U.S. territories, generating a total of 75 articles. Articles were coded using eight domains: ethnic group, health topic, geographic location, funding mechanism, type of analysis reported, prevention/management focus, CHW role, and CHW title. Articles describing results of an intervention or program evaluation, or cost-effectiveness analysis were further coded with seven domains: study design, intervention recruitment and delivery site, mode of intervention delivery, outcomes assessed, key findings, and positive impact. Results revealed gaps in the current literature and point towards recommendations for future CHW research, program, and policy efforts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0110.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Care for the Poor and UnderservedSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207