Background This is the fifth of our 11-paper supplement on “Community Health Workers at the Dawn of a New Era.” When planning new community health worker (CHW) roles or expanding existing roles, programme planners need to analyse global and local research evidence and evidence-based guidance on the effectiveness and safety of relevant tasks performed by CHWs. Methods In this paper, we explore key areas of consideration when selecting roles and tasks; present current knowledge regarding these issues; and suggest how decision-makers could consider these issues when assigning tasks in their setting. This paper draws on the chapter “Community Health Worker Roles and Tasks” in Developing and Strengthening Community Health Worker Programs at Scale: A Reference Guide and Case Studies for Program Managers and Policymakers , as well as on a recently published compendium of 29 case studies of national CHW programmes and on recently published literature pertaining to roles and tasks of CHWs. Results This paper provides a list of questions that aim to help programme planners think about important issues when determining CHW roles and tasks in their setting. Planners need to assess whether the recommended roles and tasks are considered acceptable and appropriate by their target population and by the CHWs themselves and those who support them. Planners also need to think about the practical and organizational implications of each task for their particular setting with regard to training requirements, health systems support, work location, workload, and programme costs. Conclusion When planning CHW roles and tasks, planners, programme implementers, and policy-makers should draw from global guidance and research evidence, but they also need to engage with the experiences, needs, and concerns of local communities and health workers. By drawing from both sources of information, they will stand a better chance of developing programmes that are effective in achieving their goals while remaining acceptable to those affected by them, feasible to implement, and sustainable over time.
The Mindfulness to Meaning Theory provides a detailed process model of the mechanisms by which mindfulness may promote well-being. Central to the Mindfulness to Meaning Theory is the mindful reappraisal hypothesis (MRH), which suggests mindfulness training promotes well-being by facilitating positive reappraisal. Emerging evidence from interconnected domains of research supports the MRH. However, it remains unclear whether mindful reappraisal continues to develop after a mindfulness training course and whether this continued development encourages well-being over time. As such, this randomized controlled study compared participants receiving a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) course with participants receiving no mindfulness training on positive reappraisal use and well-being over the course of 6 years. Latent growth curve modeling revealed that mindfulness training increased well-being by significantly increasing the trajectory of positive reappraisal over time. The MRH was then unpacked by examining whether MBSR also stimulated decentering and broadened awareness, core components of the MRH. Multivariate path analysis revealed that mindfulness training increased decentering, which in turn broadened awareness, which was then associated with positive reappraisal, ultimately promoting well-being. Taken together, these findings suggest that MBSR cultivates a downstream cascade of adaptive psychological processes that continue to promote quality of life 6-years after mindfulness training.
The authors regret, in the above-mentioned article, we discovered an error related to standards for adequate precision in systematic reviews of continuous variables. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: “Because it may give false reassurance, we hesitate to offer a rule-of-thumb threshold for the absolute number of patients required for adequate precision for continuous variables. For example, using the usual standards of α (0.05) and β (0.20), and an effect size of 0.2 standard deviations, representing a small effect, requires a total samples size of approximately 400 (200 per group) - a sample size that may not be sufficient to ensure prognostic balance.” The sample size stated is incorrect: the correct number is 800 (400 per group). The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The authors are grateful to Mark Chatfield for pointing out this error. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecisionJournal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 64Issue 12PreviewGRADE suggests that examination of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) provides the optimal primary approach to decisions regarding imprecision. For practice guidelines, rating down the quality of evidence (i.e., confidence in estimates of effect) is required if clinical action would differ if the upper versus the lower boundary of the CI represented the truth. An exception to this rule occurs when an effect is large, and consideration of CIs alone suggests a robust effect, but the total sample size is not large and the number of events is small. Full-Text PDF
OBJECTIVES:This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments and guideline developers can rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias, and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests.RESULTS:Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies.CONCLUSION:Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. Although several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far.
