Focus on the Future
A Community Health Worker Research Agenda by and for the Field
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12808790 |
|---|---|
| Authors | E Lee Rosenthal (corresponding author), Hendrik De Heer, Carl H Rush, Lisa-Renee Holderby |
| Year | 2008 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 183-184 |
| Publication date | 2008-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Progress in community health partnerships (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1557-055X • E-ISSN: 1557-0541 |
| Publisher | Project MUSE (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1353/cpr.0.0030 |
| OpenAlex | W4236113336 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
Focus on the Future: A Community Health Worker Research Agenda by and for the Field E. Lee Rosenthal, PhD, MPH , Hendrik de Heer, Carl H. Rush, and Lisa-Renee Holderby What is the Purpose of this Study? • This paper presents an in-depth discussion of a January 2007 conference that focused on the role of community health workers (CHWs). It describes the background of the conference, its outcomes, and future directions suggested by the meeting. For this 2-day gathering, CHWs, researchers, and stakeholders (funders, payers, and other supporters of CHW research or service delivery) came together to develop a research agenda for the CHW field. • The point of the agenda development process was to help influence future research directions. Specifically, the agenda promotes research that both supports CHW program improvements and informs health policy regarding CHWs. The agenda includes a series of questions to help guide researchers and their funders. What is the Problem? • Research papers, evaluations, and related articles that describe CHW programs often focus narrowly on program activities and short-term outcomes. Such documents generally fail to discuss and assess the longer term contributions that CHWs make to the improvement of individual and community health. • CHWs tend to be supported by short-term public and private funding; this may be linked to a lack of evidence about CHW effectiveness. • CHW roles vary widely depending on the nature of the program in which they serve. This diversity of roles contributes to a poor understanding of the field among many important groups such as policy makers and funders. The wide variety of roles also makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons in the realm of work done by CHWs. • The conference organizers believed that to foster changes in policies that will lead to more support and funding for CHWs, targeted research must be done that will provide evidence for the effectiveness of CHWs. Participants who joined in the process of developing the research agenda shared that concern. Together the organizers and conference participants created a research agenda by and for the CHW field. What are the Findings? • The following six research areas emerged as key as a result of the work that the conference organizers and participants did together: 1 Impact on health status 2 Cost-effectiveness/return on investment 3 Building CHW capacity and sustaining CHWS on the job 4 Funding options 5 CHWS as capacity builders 6 CHWS promoting real access to care [End Page 183] • The most powerful aspect of the agenda-development conference involved the public commitments that each participant made. These commitments were related to what their agency or they themselves could do to contribute to carrying out the CHW research agenda. Many individuals publicly expressed their commitments. These included peoples' willingness to work on ideas such as a peer-reviewed journal for and by CHWs, a fact sheet on CHWs for state legislators, and a public health journal supplement on CHW research. Who Should Care Most? • CHWs and their communities. • Stakeholders, including payers and supporters of CHW research and/or service delivery. • Researchers with an interest in the field of CHWs. • Health administrators and policy makers in public and private institutions as well as community-based organizations. • Other individuals who are interested in the application and translation of research findings in applied settings. Recommendations for Action • Stakeholders should consider supporting CHW research projects that address issues on the agenda in the six key areas listed. Stakeholders are urged to coordinate efforts to carry out the research agenda. • Establish a CHW research clearinghouse to support CHW studies of the sorts included in the agenda described. Activities could include the coordinated administration of research funding from private and public partners. • Carry out research projects in partnership with community members to ensure the strong development of CHW programs in service to communities. • CHWs should play active roles in every aspect of research on CHWs and health disparities, from initial design to the sharing of results. • CHWs should play a leading role in the development of the CHW field overall. Several local, state, and national organizations led by CHWs represent this emerging voice. • Continue to update the CHW research agenda. [End Page 184] E. Lee Rosenthal University
Business · Community health · Community health workers · Diversity (politics · Environmental health · Field (mathematics · Focus group · Health services · Human services · Political science · Population · Public health · Public relations · Service (business · Service delivery framework · Sociology · Health Policy Implementation Science · Interprofessional Education and Collaboration · Medicine · Nursing · Primary Care and Health Outcomes
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,2 |
| Citation span | 2011 - 2025 (15) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |