Mobilising global knowledge to strengthen the integration of community health workers (CHWs) in high-income countries with universal healthcare systems: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: and not well integrated within high-income countries like Canada. The objective of this scoping review is to map out available evidence on the integration of CHWs in high-income countries with universal healthcare systems. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will include all available literature involving CHWs, or similar designations, and their integration into universal health systems within high-income countries. Literature will be excluded if it does not involve CHWs, universal healthcare systems, address integration or is conducted in low-middle-income countries. This review will include all available literature (including those that show null or negative results) that examines the integration of CHWs in high-income countries with a universal healthcare system. Documents describing integration may include, but are not limited to: tools, policies, models, frameworks, programmes or organisational features that seek to promote positive integration. Peer-reviewed and grey literature examining CHW integration in high-income countries with universal healthcare systems will be eligible for inclusion. Databases/sources to be searched (from inception until November 2025) will include: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), Business Source Complete (EBSCO), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Retrieval of full-text, all language studies (and other literature), data extraction, synthesis and mapping will be performed independently by two reviewers, following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Findings will be organised and presented according to the Levesque conceptual framework for healthcare access. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review and literature search will start in October 2025 or on acceptance of this protocol. The findings of the scoping review will be available (February 2026) and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
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 | 0.117 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.012 |
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".