The role of community health workers in primary healthcare in the WHO-EU region: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Existing evidence on the role of community health workers (CHWs) in primary healthcare originates primarily from the United States, Canada and Australia, and from low- and middle-income countries. Little is known about the role of CHWs in primary healthcare in European countries. This scoping review aimed to contribute to filling this gap by providing an overview of literature reporting on the involvement of CHWs in primary healthcare in WHO-EU countries since 2001 with a focus on the role, training, recruitment and remuneration. METHODS: This systematic scoping review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, extension for Scoping Reviews. All published peer-reviewed literature indexed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases from Jan 2001 to Feb 2023 were reviewed for inclusion. Included studies were screened on title, abstract and full text according to predetermined eligibility criteria. Studies were included if they were conducted in the WHO-EU region and provided information regarding the role, training, recruitment or remuneration of CHWs. RESULTS: Forty studies were included in this review, originating from eight countries. The involvement of CHWs in the WHO-EU regions was usually project-based, except in the United Kingdom. A substantial amount of literature with variability in the terminology used to describe CHWs, the areas of involvement, recruitment, training, and remuneration strategies was found. The included studies reported a trend towards recruitment from within the communities with some form of training and payment of CHWs. A salient finding was the social embeddedness of CHWs in the communities they served. Their roles can be classified into one or a combination of the following: educational; navigational and supportive. CONCLUSION: Future research projects involving CHWs should detail their involvement and elaborate on CHWs' role, training and recruitment procedures. In addition, further research on CHW programmes in the WHO-EU region is necessary to prepare for their integration into the broader national health systems.

Cost-of-Illness of Skin Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer's rising incidence demands understanding of its economic impact. The current understanding is fragmented because of the various methodological approaches applied in skin cancer cost-of-illness studies. OBJECTIVE: This study systematically reviews melanoma and keratinocyte carcinoma cost-of-illness studies to provide an overview of the applied methodological approaches and to identify the main cost drivers. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted adhering to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from December 2022 until December 2023 using a search strategy with entry terms related to the concepts of skin cancer and cost of illness. The records were screened on the basis of the title and abstract and subsequently on full text against predetermined eligibility criteria. Articles published before 2012 were excluded. A nine-item checklist adapted for cost-of-illness studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the articles. RESULTS: This review included a total of 45 studies, together evaluating more than half a million patients. The majority of the studies (n = 36) focused on melanoma skin cancer, a few (n = 3) focused on keratinocyte carcinomas, and 6 studies examined both. Direct costs were estimated in all studies, while indirect costs were only estimated in nine studies. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across studies, mainly owing to disparities in study population, methodological approaches, included cost categories, and differences in healthcare systems. In melanoma skin cancer, both direct and indirect costs increased with progressing tumor stage. In advanced stage melanoma, systemic therapy emerged as the main cost driver. In contrast, for keratinocyte carcinoma no obvious cost drivers were identified. CONCLUSIONS: A homogeneous skin cancer cost-of-illness study design would be beneficial to enhance between-studies comparability, identification of cost drivers, and support evidence-based decision-making for skin cancer.