BACKGROUND: Community health workers (CHWs) are uniquely placed to link communities with the health system, playing a role in improving the reach of health systems and bringing health services closer to hard-to-reach and marginalised groups. A systematic review was conducted to determine the extent of equity of CHW programmes and to identify intervention design factors which influence equity of health outcomes.
METHODS: In accordance with our published protocol, we systematically searched eight databases from 2004 to 2014 for quantitative and qualitative studies which assessed access, utilisation, quality or community empowerment following introduction of a CHW programme according to equity stratifiers (place of residence, gender, socio-economic position and disability). Thirty four papers met inclusion criteria. A thematic framework was applied and data extracted and managed, prior to charting and thematic analysis.
RESULTS: To our knowledge this is the first systematic review that describes the extent of equity within CHW programmes and identifies CHW intervention design features which influence equity. CHW programmes were found to promote equity of access and utilisation for community health by reducing inequities relating to place of residence, gender, education and socio-economic position. CHWs can also contribute towards more equitable uptake of referrals at health facility level. There was no clear evidence for equitable quality of services provided by CHWs and limited information regarding the role of the CHW in generating community empowerment to respond to social determinants of health. Factors promoting greater equity of CHW services include recruitment of most poor community members as CHWs, close proximity of services to households, pre-existing social relationship with CHW, provision of home-based services, free service delivery, targeting of poor households, strengthened referral to facility, sensitisation and mobilisation of community. However, if CHW programmes are not well planned some of the barriers faced by clients at health facility level can replicate at community level.
CONCLUSIONS: CHWs promote equitable access to health promotion, disease prevention and use of curative services at household level. However, care must be taken by policymakers and implementers to take into account factors which can influence the equity of services during planning and implementation of CHW programmes.
HIV testing and counselling is the first crucial step for linkage to HIV treatment and prevention. However, despite high HIV burden in sub-Saharan Africa, testing coverage is low, particularly among young adults and men. Community-based HIV testing and counselling (testing outside of health facilities) has the potential to reduce coverage gaps, but the relative impact of different modalities is not well assessed. We conducted a systematic review of HIV testing modalities, characterizing community (home, mobile, index, key populations, campaign, workplace and self-testing) and facility approaches by population reached, HIV positivity, CD4 count at diagnosis and linkage. Of 2,520 abstracts screened, 126 met eligibility criteria. Community HIV testing and counselling had high coverage and uptake and identified HIV-positive people at higher CD4 counts than facility testing. Mobile HIV testing reached the highest proportion of men of all modalities examined (50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 47-54%) and home with self-testing reached the highest proportion of young adults (66%, 95% CI = 65-67%). Few studies evaluated HIV testing for key populations (commercial sex workers and men who have sex with men), but these interventions yielded high HIV positivity (38%, 95% CI = 19-62%) combined with the highest proportion of first-time testers (78%, 95% CI = 63-88%), indicating service gaps. Community testing with facilitated linkage (for example, counsellor follow-up to support linkage) achieved high linkage to care (95%, 95% CI = 87-98%) and antiretroviral initiation (75%, 95% CI = 68-82%). Expanding home and mobile testing, self-testing and outreach to key populations with facilitated linkage can increase the proportion of men, young adults and high-risk individuals linked to HIV treatment and prevention, and decrease HIV burden.
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus counselling and testing is a critical and essential gateway to Human immunodeficiency virus prevention, treatment, care and support services. Though some primary studies indicate that home-based counselling and testing is more effective than facility based counselling and testing to reduce stigma and risky sexual behavior, to the best of the author's knowledge, no systematic review has tried to establish consistency in the findings across populations.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of home-based Human immunodeficiency virus counselling and testing in reducing Human immunodeficiency virus-related stigma and risky sexual behavior among adults and adolescents.
INCLUSION CRITERIA: None
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: All adults and adolescents aged 13 years or above. Type of intervention: This review considered any studies that evaluated home-based Human immunodeficiency virus counseling and testing as an intervention. Types of studies: This review considered quantitative (experimental and observational) studies. Types of outcomes: This review considered studies that included the following outcome measures: stigma, violence, sexual behavior and clinical outcomes.
SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies reported in English Language from 2001 to 2014 in MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus and CINAHL. The search for unpublished studies included: WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, Mednar, Google Scholar, AIDSinfo and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY: Papers selected for retrieval were assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Quantitative data were pooled using the meta-analysis software provided by Joanna Briggs Institute. Effect sizes were calculated using fixed effects model. Where the findings could not be pooled using meta-analyses, results were presented in a narrative form.
RESULTS: Nine studies were included in this review, five of them reporting on stigma and related outcomes, three of them on sexual behavior and four of them on clinical outcomes. Meta-analysis indicated that the risk of observing any stigmatizing behavior in the community was 16% (relative risk =0.84, 95% Confidence interval 0.79 to 0.89] lower among the participants exposed to home-based counselling and testing when compared to the risk among those participants not exposed to home-based counselling and testing. The risk of experiencing any stigmatizing behavior by Human immunodeficiency virus positive patients was 37% (relative risk 0.63, 95% Confidence interval 0.45 to 0.88) lower among the intervention population compared to the risk among the control population. The risk of intimate partner violence was 34% (relative risk 0.66, 95% Confidence interval 0.49 to 0.89) lower among participants exposed to home-based counselling and testing when compared to the risk among participants in the control arm. Compared to the control arm, the risk of reporting more than one sexual partner was 58% (relative risk 0.42, 95% Confidence TRUNCATED AT 500 WORDS.
Community health workers (CHWs) are uniquely placed to link communities with the health system, playing a role in improving the reach of health systems and bringing health services closer to hard-to-reach and marginalised groups. A systematic review was conducted to determine the extent of equity of CHW programmes and to identify intervention design factors which influence equity of health outcomes.
METHODS:
In accordance with our published protocol, we systematically searched eight databases from 2004 to 2014 for quantitative and qualitative studies which assessed access, utilisation, quality or community empowerment following introduction of a CHW programme according to equity stratifiers (place of residence, gender, socio-economic position and disability). Thirty four papers met inclusion criteria. A thematic framework was applied and data extracted and managed, prior to charting and thematic analysis.
RESULTS:
To our knowledge this is the first systematic review that describes the extent of equity within CHW programmes and identifies CHW intervention design features which influence equity. CHW programmes were found to promote equity of access and utilisation for community health by reducing inequities relating to place of residence, gender, education and socio-economic position. CHWs can also contribute towards more equitable uptake of referrals at health facility level. There was no clear evidence for equitable quality of services provided by CHWs and limited information regarding the role of the CHW in generating community empowerment to respond to social determinants of health. Factors promoting greater equity of CHW services include recruitment of most poor community members as CHWs, close proximity of services to households, pre-existing social relationship with CHW, provision of home-based services, free service delivery, targeting of poor households, strengthened referral to facility, sensitisation and mobilisation of community. However, if CHW programmes are not well planned some of the barriers faced by clients at health facility level can replicate at community level.
CONCLUSIONS:
CHWs promote equitable access to health promotion, disease prevention and use of curative services at household level. However, care must be taken by policymakers and implementers to take into account factors which can influence the equity of services during planning and implementation of CHW programmes.
Systematic Review Question»Other systematic review or not clear
