Evaluating the impact of community health worker certification in Massachusetts: Design, methods, and anticipated results of the Massachusetts community health worker workforce survey.
certification
community health workers
healthcare reform
methods
surveys and questionnaires
Journal
Frontiers in public health
ISSN: 2296-2565
Titre abrégé: Front Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101616579
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
13
09
2022
accepted:
28
12
2022
entrez:
30
1
2023
pubmed:
31
1
2023
medline:
1
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Professional certification of community health workers (CHWs) is a debated topic. Although intended to promote CHWs, certification may have unintended impacts given the grassroots nature of the workforce. As such, both intended effects and unintended adverse effects should be carefully evaluated. However, there is a lack of published literature describing such effective evaluations with a robust methodology. In this methods paper, we describe a key component of evaluating CHW certification in Massachusetts-the Massachusetts CHW Workforce Survey. Design of the surveys was informed by a program theory framework that delineated both positive and negative potential impacts of Massachusetts CHW certification on CHWs and CHW employers. Using this framework, we developed measures of interest and preliminary CHW and CHW employer surveys. To validate and refine the surveys, we conducted cognitive interviews with CHWs and CHW employers. We then finalized survey tools with input from state and national stakeholders, CHWs, and CHW employers. Our sample consisted of three frames based on where CHWs are most likely to be employed in Massachusetts: acute care hospitals, community-based organizations, and ambulatory care health centers, primarily community health centers and federally qualified health centers. We then undertook extensive outreach efforts to determine whether each organization employed CHWs and to obtain CHW and CHW employer contact information. Our statistical analysis of the data utilized inverse probability score weighting accounting for organizational, site, and individual response. Wave one of the survey was administered in 2016 prior to launch of Massachusetts CHW certification and wave two in 2021. We report descriptive statistics of the three sample frames and response rates of each survey for each wave. Further, we describe select anticipated results related to certification, including outcomes of the program theory framework. The Massachusetts CHW Workforce Survey is the culmination of 5 years of effort to evaluate the impact of CHW certification in Massachusetts. Our comprehensive description of our methodology addresses an important gap in CHW research literature. The rigorous design, administration, and analysis of our surveys ensure our findings are robust, valid, and replicable, which can be leveraged by others evaluating the CHW workforce.
Sections du résumé
Background
Professional certification of community health workers (CHWs) is a debated topic. Although intended to promote CHWs, certification may have unintended impacts given the grassroots nature of the workforce. As such, both intended effects and unintended adverse effects should be carefully evaluated. However, there is a lack of published literature describing such effective evaluations with a robust methodology. In this methods paper, we describe a key component of evaluating CHW certification in Massachusetts-the Massachusetts CHW Workforce Survey.
Methods
Design of the surveys was informed by a program theory framework that delineated both positive and negative potential impacts of Massachusetts CHW certification on CHWs and CHW employers. Using this framework, we developed measures of interest and preliminary CHW and CHW employer surveys. To validate and refine the surveys, we conducted cognitive interviews with CHWs and CHW employers. We then finalized survey tools with input from state and national stakeholders, CHWs, and CHW employers. Our sample consisted of three frames based on where CHWs are most likely to be employed in Massachusetts: acute care hospitals, community-based organizations, and ambulatory care health centers, primarily community health centers and federally qualified health centers. We then undertook extensive outreach efforts to determine whether each organization employed CHWs and to obtain CHW and CHW employer contact information. Our statistical analysis of the data utilized inverse probability score weighting accounting for organizational, site, and individual response.
Anticipated results
Wave one of the survey was administered in 2016 prior to launch of Massachusetts CHW certification and wave two in 2021. We report descriptive statistics of the three sample frames and response rates of each survey for each wave. Further, we describe select anticipated results related to certification, including outcomes of the program theory framework.
Conclusions
The Massachusetts CHW Workforce Survey is the culmination of 5 years of effort to evaluate the impact of CHW certification in Massachusetts. Our comprehensive description of our methodology addresses an important gap in CHW research literature. The rigorous design, administration, and analysis of our surveys ensure our findings are robust, valid, and replicable, which can be leveraged by others evaluating the CHW workforce.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36711392
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1043668
pmc: PMC9877511
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1043668Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Nielsen, Ursprung, Song, Hirsch, Mason, Santarelli, Guimaraes, Marshall, Allen, Lei, Brown and Behl-Chadha.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
EG was employed by Mass General Brigham. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Am J Public Health. 2022 Oct;112(10):1368-1369
pubmed: 36007208
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Oct 1;177(10):1424-1430
pubmed: 28783811
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Apr;174(4):543-5
pubmed: 24515296
Am J Public Health. 2017 Dec;107(12):1964-1969
pubmed: 29048953
Am J Public Health. 2022 Oct;112(10):1480-1488
pubmed: 35952329
J Community Health. 2018 Dec;43(6):1145-1154
pubmed: 29846861
Am J Public Health. 2012 Oct;102(10):1981-7
pubmed: 22897548
J Asthma. 2009 Aug;46(6):564-76
pubmed: 19657896
Fam Syst Health. 2017 Sep;35(3):320-340
pubmed: 28639794
J Community Health. 2012 Apr;37(2):529-37
pubmed: 21964912
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2277-9
pubmed: 26061832
Am J Public Health. 2012 Sep;102(9):1633-7
pubmed: 22813092
Am J Public Health. 2011 Dec;101(12):e1-5
pubmed: 22021289
Health Policy. 2007 Jan;80(1):32-42
pubmed: 16569457
Prev Chronic Dis. 2015 Sep 17;12:E154
pubmed: 26378900
J Ambul Care Manage. 2011 Jul-Sep;34(3):221-33
pubmed: 21673521
Med Care. 2010 Sep;48(9):792-808
pubmed: 20706166
J Community Health. 2015 Apr;40(2):215-21
pubmed: 25060232