The role of community health workers in primary healthcare in the WHO-EU region: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Existing evidence on the role of community health workers (CHWs) in primary healthcare originates primarily from the United States, Canada and Australia, and from low- and middle-income countries. Little is known about the role of CHWs in primary healthcare in European countries. This scoping review aimed to contribute to filling this gap by providing an overview of literature reporting on the involvement of CHWs in primary healthcare in WHO-EU countries since 2001 with a focus on the role, training, recruitment and remuneration. Methods This systematic scoping review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, extension for Scoping Reviews. All published peer-reviewed literature indexed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases from Jan 2001 to Feb 2023 were reviewed for inclusion. Included studies were screened on title, abstract and full text according to predetermined eligibility criteria. Studies were included if they were conducted in the WHO-EU region and provided information regarding the role, training, recruitment or remuneration of CHWs. Results Forty studies were included in this review, originating from eight countries. The involvement of CHWs in the WHO-EU regions was usually project-based, except in the United Kingdom. A substantial amount of literature with variability in the terminology used to describe CHWs, the areas of involvement, recruitment, training, and remuneration strategies was found. The included studies reported a trend towards recruitment from within the communities with some form of training and payment of CHWs. A salient finding was the social embeddedness of CHWs in the communities they served. Their roles can be classified into one or a combination of the following: educational; navigational and supportive. Conclusion Future research projects involving CHWs should detail their involvement and elaborate on CHWs’ role, training and recruitment procedures. In addition, further research on CHW programmes in the WHO-EU region is necessary to prepare for their integration into the broader national health systems.
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 | 0.027 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".