MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411977976 · doi:10.1177/11786329251352658

Amplifying Community Health Worker Voices to Examine the Implementation and Scaling of a Community Health Program: A Qualitative Study in the Philippines

2025· article· en· W4411977976 on OpenAlexafffund
Warren Dodd, Laura Jane Brubacher, Monica Bustos, Melinda Kelly Mijares, Krisha Lim-Mar, Lincoln Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Insights · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCommunity healthCommunity health workersMedical educationProgram evaluationImplementation researchPsychological interventionQualitative researchPublic relationsNursingPsychologyMedicinePublic healthSociologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPopulationHealth services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Scaling community-based health programs can contribute to efforts to achieve universal health coverage. Implementers of community-based health programs, such as community health workers (CHWs), hold valuable insights and experiences that can inform how these programs scale up and out. Objectives: (1) To assess implementer experiences and perceptions of a community-based health program delivered by CHWs that underwent recent changes to broaden its programing and reach (ie, scaling up); and (2) to describe facilitators and barriers to the implementation of this community-based health program to inform subsequent scaling out. Methods: In April 2023, an evaluation of an NGO-led CHW program was conducted with program implementers across 6 geographic regions in Negros Oriental, Philippines (n = 64 semi-structured interviews). Data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive analysis, informed by the Medical Research Council's framework for process evaluation of complex interventions. Ethics approval was provided by the University of Waterloo Research Ethics Board (Certificate #: 44828). Results: CHWs perceived that the scaled up version of the program was more useful and impactful, given its expanded reach and provision of basic treatment; however, new program components also required significant time, effort, and strategy to implement which created new opportunity costs for CHWs. Implementation of the scaled up version of the program was facilitated via clear communication structures and supportive group training spaces. Pre-existing roles and social networks held by CHWs further facilitated the implementation of the scaled up version of the program. Overall, new individual-level and community-based strategies were leveraged by CHWs to implement the scaled up program, and participants described facilitators (eg, expanded reach) and barriers (eg, increased time and effort) that influenced program implementation. Conclusion: This study contributes insights into how individuals involved in the scaling of a community-based health program may experience this process.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.412 · 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.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Services InsightsSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207