MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029981998 · doi:10.1093/heapol/czaa049

The distinctive roles of urban community health workers in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of the literature

2020· review· en· W3029981998 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Teralynn Ludwick, Alison Morgan, Sumit Kane, Margaret Kelaher, Barbara McPake

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy and Planning · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsCINAHLOutreachDisadvantagedMedicineService delivery frameworkHealth equityNursingPolitical scienceService (business)Public healthBusinessPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing urban health challenges in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been hampered by lack of evidence on effective mechanisms for delivering health services to the poor. The urban disadvantaged experience poor health outcomes (often worse than rural counterparts) and face service barriers. While community health workers (CHWs) have been extensively employed in rural communities to address inequities, little attention has been given to understanding the roles of CHWs in urban contexts. This study is the first to systematically examine urban CHW roles in LMICs. It aims to understand their roles vis-à-vis other health providers and raise considerations for informing future scope of practice and service delivery models. We developed a framework that presents seven key roles performed by urban CHWs and position these roles against a continuum of technical to political functions. Our scoping review included publications from four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Social Sciences Citation Index) and two CHW resource hubs. We included all peer-reviewed, CHW studies situated in urban/peri-urban, LMIC contexts. We identify roles (un)commonly performed by urban CHWs, present the range of evidence available on CHW effectiveness in performing each role and identify considerations for informing future roles. Of 856 articles, 160 met the inclusion criteria. Programmes spanned 34 LMICs. Studies most commonly reported evidence on CHWs roles related to health education, outreach and elements of direct service provision. We found little overlap in roles between CHWs and other providers, with some exceptions. Reported roles were biased towards home visiting and individual-capacity building, and not well-oriented to reach men/youth/working women, support community empowerment or link with social services. Urban-specific adaptations to roles, such as peer outreach to high-risk, stigmatized communities, were limited. Innovation in urban CHW roles and a better understanding of the unique opportunities presented by urban settings is needed to fully capitalize on their potential.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Policy and PlanningSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207