Community Health Worker Videoconferencing Interventions for Disease Management and Health Promotion: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public health interventions delivered by community health workers (CHWs) have been proven effective in improving health outcomes across multiple fields, particularly in populations that are underserved by traditional health care systems. To date, little research is available about how CHW-led interventions could be successfully delivered virtually, despite many other health care services being offered via telehealth. OBJECTIVE: This paper details a scoping review protocol that aims to assess the existing literature on CHW-led interventions using videoconferencing technology. METHODS: The scoping review protocol was developed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's guidelines on conduct of scoping reviews. Included papers will describe a direct intervention to manage disease or improve health, delivered by CHWs via videoconferencing. Multiple literature databases and gray literature will be searched. Abstracts and then full texts will be reviewed to determine inclusion by 2 independent reviewers; conflicts at each stage will be resolved by a third reviewer. A data extraction tool will be used by reviewers to independently chart data from included studies; results will be reviewed for accuracy by a second reviewer. Included papers will be analyzed to identify the breadth of the available evidence, including barriers, facilitators, effectiveness, and best practices described in the literature. Data will be summarized in a narrative review. RESULTS: This study commenced in April 2022, and the study protocol was finalized in November 2022. A preliminary search of the published literature (excluding gray literature) in July 2024 revealed 276 reports after removal of duplicates. The formal literature search will commence in August 2024, with results available by December 2024. We intend to publish results in the academic literature as well as creating a report accessible to nonacademic and community audiences. CONCLUSIONS: This review will illuminate the breadth of the evidence available on CHW videoconferencing interventions, with specific focus on strategies for implementation success and equity of access. and will be of great value to organizations that offer CHW services. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/55160.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.093 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.022 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".