Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prioritizing Competencies for "Research" Promotores and Community Health Workers.
Nebeker, Camille; Giacinto, Rebeca Espinoza; Pacheco, Blanca Azucena; López-Arenas, Araceli; Kalichman, Michael.
Afiliação
  • Nebeker C; University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
  • Giacinto RE; University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
  • Pacheco BA; University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
  • López-Arenas A; University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
  • Kalichman M; University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Health Promot Pract ; 22(4): 512-523, 2021 07.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32228241
ABSTRACT
Background. The community health worker (CHW) model is utilized globally to promote health and reduce health disparities in hard-to-reach and underserved communities. The model is deemed successful due to involvement of these natural helpers who are familiar with the local customs, language, and traditions. "Research" CHWs (also known as promotores) serve as cultural mediators between their community and academic researchers and are increasingly involved in the design and implementation of research; yet few of these individuals have received formal training in research methods or ethics. This study identified requisite skills and knowledge needed by research CHWs. Method. Investigators who utilized the CHW/promotor model were recruited to complete a survey and participate in one of four focus group sessions. Participants identified (1) research roles, (2) training received, (3) research competencies, (4) training barriers and facilitators, and (5) assessment preferences. Results. Participants (n = 20) completed a survey with 19 also participating in a focus group session. All participants involved CHWs in research implementation, with nearly half involving CHWs in the study design and/or dissemination of findings phases. Critical thinking skills and application of ethical principles (e.g., demonstrating respect) were prioritized over knowledge of research infrastructure (e.g., institutional review board/ethics review process). Research ethics training designed for academic researchers was deemed inappropriate because sophisticated terminology and web-based delivery were perceived as an access barrier. Self-assessment and contextualized scenarios were recommended to assess critical thinking. Conclusions. Researchers using the CHW model should provide relevant and accessible research competency training.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Agentes Comunitários de Saúde / Promoção da Saúde Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Health Promot Pract Assunto da revista: SAUDE PUBLICA Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Agentes Comunitários de Saúde / Promoção da Saúde Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Health Promot Pract Assunto da revista: SAUDE PUBLICA Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos