Search

BackgroundProfessional 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.MethodsDesign 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 resultsWave 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

There is wide geographic variation in Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplementary Security Income participation across the United States. Some policymakers and members of the public may assume that interregional administrative inconsistencies are a major reason for the geographic variation. To test this assumption, and to reveal other potential explanations for the variation, we decompose the total variation into components by examining regional differences in disability prevalence and in program participation among persons with disabilities as well as the correlation between those two factors. We further decompose the variation in participation among persons with disabilities into socioeconomic components. Our findings strongly suggest that geographic variation in program participation is mainly an indication of geographic variation in disability prevalence and socioeconomic characteristics and that inconsistency in program administration is not a major reason for the variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite its increasing popularity, little is known about the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model in primary care settings serving homeless populations. Our objective was to understand how patient experience differs between a PCMH demonstration practice designed for homeless people in Massachusetts and other practices participating in the same statewide initiative. The study population included 194 homeless patients and 1,868 patients from comparison practices. Patient experience was compared on key measures of patient-centeredness, while applying case-mix adjustment to control for sociodemographic and clinical factors. The practice for homeless patients scored higher than the comparison group on self-management support and behavioral health integration, while being equivalent on three other measures. Potential areas for improvement include measures related to communication, front desk staff, and timely appointments. We discuss possible explanations for the observed pattern of results in the context of the unique challenges faced by a practice designed to serve individuals experiencing homelessness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]