Establishing voluntary certification of community health workers in Arizona: a policy case study of building a unified workforce.
Coalition
Community health representatives
Community health worker
Health disparities
Policy
Promotoras de salud
Public health workforce
Scope of practice
Voluntary certification
Journal
Human resources for health
ISSN: 1478-4491
Titre abrégé: Hum Resour Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170535
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 06 2020
26 06 2020
Historique:
received:
27
01
2020
accepted:
10
06
2020
entrez:
27
6
2020
pubmed:
27
6
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Community health workers (CHWs) are widely recognized as essential to addressing disparities in health care delivery and outcomes in US vulnerable populations. In the state of Arizona, the sustainability of the workforce is threatened by low wages, poor job security, and limited opportunities for training and advancement within the profession. CHW voluntary certification offers an avenue to increase the recognition, compensation, training, and standardization of the workforce. However, passing voluntary certification legislation in an anti-regulatory state such as Arizona posed a major challenge that required a robust advocacy effort. In this article, we describe the process of unifying the two major CHW workforces in Arizona, promotoras de salud in US-Mexico border communities and community health representatives (CHRs) serving American Indian communities. Differences in the origins, financing, and even language of the population-served contributed to historically divergent interests between CHRs and promotoras. In order to move forward as a collective workforce, it was imperative to integrate the perspectives of CHRs, who have a regular funding stream and work closely through the Indian Health Services, with those of promotoras, who are more likely to be grant-funded in community-based efforts. As a unified workforce, CHWs were better positioned to gain advocacy support from key health care providers and health insurance companies with policy influence. We seek to elucidate the lessons learned in our process that may be relevant to CHWs representing diverse communities across the US and internationally. Legislated voluntary certification provides a pathway for further professionalization of the CHW workforce by establishing a standard definition and set of core competencies. Voluntary certification also provides guidance to organizations in developing appropriate training and job activities, as well as ongoing professional development opportunities. In developing certification with CHWs representing different populations, and in particular Tribal Nations, it is essential to assure that the CHW definition is in alignment with all groups and that the scope of practice reflects CHW roles in both clinic and community-based settings. The Arizona experience underscores the benefits of a flexible approach that leverages existing strengths in organizations and the population served.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Community health workers (CHWs) are widely recognized as essential to addressing disparities in health care delivery and outcomes in US vulnerable populations. In the state of Arizona, the sustainability of the workforce is threatened by low wages, poor job security, and limited opportunities for training and advancement within the profession. CHW voluntary certification offers an avenue to increase the recognition, compensation, training, and standardization of the workforce. However, passing voluntary certification legislation in an anti-regulatory state such as Arizona posed a major challenge that required a robust advocacy effort.
CASE PRESENTATION
In this article, we describe the process of unifying the two major CHW workforces in Arizona, promotoras de salud in US-Mexico border communities and community health representatives (CHRs) serving American Indian communities. Differences in the origins, financing, and even language of the population-served contributed to historically divergent interests between CHRs and promotoras. In order to move forward as a collective workforce, it was imperative to integrate the perspectives of CHRs, who have a regular funding stream and work closely through the Indian Health Services, with those of promotoras, who are more likely to be grant-funded in community-based efforts. As a unified workforce, CHWs were better positioned to gain advocacy support from key health care providers and health insurance companies with policy influence. We seek to elucidate the lessons learned in our process that may be relevant to CHWs representing diverse communities across the US and internationally.
CONCLUSIONS
Legislated voluntary certification provides a pathway for further professionalization of the CHW workforce by establishing a standard definition and set of core competencies. Voluntary certification also provides guidance to organizations in developing appropriate training and job activities, as well as ongoing professional development opportunities. In developing certification with CHWs representing different populations, and in particular Tribal Nations, it is essential to assure that the CHW definition is in alignment with all groups and that the scope of practice reflects CHW roles in both clinic and community-based settings. The Arizona experience underscores the benefits of a flexible approach that leverages existing strengths in organizations and the population served.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32586328
doi: 10.1186/s12960-020-00487-7
pii: 10.1186/s12960-020-00487-7
pmc: PMC7318497
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
46Subventions
Organisme : NCCDPHP CDC HHS
ID : 6 U48DP005002-05-02
Pays : United States
Références
Fam Community Health. 2012 Apr-Jun;35(2):130-8
pubmed: 22367260
Am J Public Health. 2014 Jun;104 Suppl 3:S263-7
pubmed: 24754649
J Community Health. 2008 Dec;33(6):417-24
pubmed: 18584315
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Nov 30;67(47):1314-1318
pubmed: 30496159
Healthc (Amst). 2019 Sep;7(3):100334
pubmed: 30146473
Prev Med. 2017 Oct;103:1-7
pubmed: 28735724
BMC Public Health. 2017 Apr 21;17(1):348
pubmed: 28431541
Am J Public Health. 2016 Apr;106(4):e3-e28
pubmed: 26890177
Health Educ Behav. 2004 Aug;31(4 Suppl):18S-28S
pubmed: 15296689
Am J Public Health. 2017 Oct;107(10):1668-1674
pubmed: 28817321
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 5;369(10):894-6
pubmed: 24004115
J Community Health. 1992 Feb;17(1):13-26
pubmed: 1564136
Am J Public Health. 2010 Apr;100(4):590-5
pubmed: 20167880
J Prim Prev. 2014 Apr;35(2):119-23
pubmed: 24363179
Health Promot Pract. 2017 Nov;18(6):798-805
pubmed: 28673089
Public Health Rep. 1975 Nov-Dec;90(6):552-60
pubmed: 813269
Am J Public Health. 2011 Dec;101(12):2199-203
pubmed: 22021280
Am J Public Health. 2017 Dec;107(12):1964-1969
pubmed: 29048953
Health Educ Behav. 2008 Feb;35(1):119-37
pubmed: 16861594
Prev Chronic Dis. 2005 Jan;2(1):A15
pubmed: 15670468
Public Health Rep. 1969 Nov;84(11):965-70
pubmed: 4982255
J Community Health. 2017 Dec;42(6):1197-1203
pubmed: 28589270
J Community Health. 2018 Dec;43(6):1145-1154
pubmed: 29846861
Diabetes Educ. 2007 Jun;33 Suppl 6:172S-178S
pubmed: 17620398
Am J Public Health. 2011 Dec;101(12):2211-6
pubmed: 22021281
J Ambul Care Manage. 2016 Jan-Mar;39(1):2-11
pubmed: 26650741
J Community Health. 2016 Apr;41(2):315-25
pubmed: 26455578
J Immigr Minor Health. 2012 Apr;14(2):323-9
pubmed: 21240557
Lancet. 2008 Nov 8;372(9650):1661-9
pubmed: 18994664
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Feb;199:29-38
pubmed: 28410759
Health Promot Pract. 2018 May;19(3):349-360
pubmed: 29363334
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Jul;29(7):1338-42
pubmed: 20606185
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2007 Winter;1(4):371-81
pubmed: 20208216