Community Health Workers to Increase Cancer Screening: 3 Community Guide Systematic Reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Many in the U.S. are not up to date with cancer screening. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of interventions engaging community health workers to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Authors identified relevant publications from previous Community Guide systematic reviews of interventions to increase cancer screening (1966 through 2013) and from an update search (January 2014-November 2021). Studies written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals were included if they assessed interventions implemented in high-income countries; reported screening for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer; and engaged community health workers to implement part or all of the interventions. Community health workers needed to come from or have close knowledge of the intervention community. RESULTS: The review included 76 studies. Interventions engaging community health workers increased screening use for breast (median increase=11.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=5.5‒23.5), cervical (median increase=12.8 percentage points, interquartile interval=6.4‒21.0), and colorectal cancers (median increase=10.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=4.5‒17.5). Interventions were effective whether community health workers worked alone or as part of a team. Interventions increased cancer screening independent of race or ethnicity, income, or insurance status. DISCUSSION: Interventions engaging community health workers are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force to increase cancer screening. These interventions are typically implemented in communities where people are underserved to improve health and can enhance health equity. Further training and financial support for community health workers should be considered to increase cancer screening uptake.

Team-Based Care to Improve Diabetes Management: A Community Guide Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Team-based care has been increasingly used to deliver care for patients with chronic conditions, but its effectiveness for managing diabetes has not been systematically assessed. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: RCTs were identified from two sources: a high-quality, broader review comparing 11 quality improvement strategies for diabetes management (database inception to July 2010), and an updated search using the same search strategy (July 2010-October 2015). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty-five studies were included in the current review; a majority focused on patients with Type 2 diabetes. Teams included patients, their primary care providers, and one or two additional healthcare professionals (most often nurses or pharmacists). Random effect meta-analysis showed that, compared with controls, team-based care was associated with greater reductions in blood glucose levels (-0.5% in HbA1c, 95% CI= -0.7, -0.3) and greater improvements in blood pressure and lipid levels. Interventions also increased the proportion of patients who reached target blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels, based on American Diabetes Association guidelines available at the time. Data analysis was completed in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with Type 2 diabetes, team-based care improves blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels.

Economics of Community Health Workers for Chronic Disease: Findings From Community Guide Systematic Reviews.

CONTEXT: Cardiovascular disease in the U.S. accounted for healthcare cost and productivity losses of $330 billion in 2013-2014 and diabetes accounted for $327 billion in 2017. The impact is disproportionate on minority and low-SES populations. This paper examines the available evidence on cost, economic benefit, and cost effectiveness of interventions that engage community health workers to prevent cardiovascular disease, prevent type 2 diabetes, and manage type 2 diabetes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Literature from the inception of databases through July 2016 was searched for studies with economic information, yielding nine studies in cardiovascular disease prevention, seven studies in type 2 diabetes prevention, and 13 studies in type 2 diabetes management. Analyses were done in 2017. Monetary values are reported in 2016 U.S. dollars. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The median intervention cost per patient per year was $329 for cardiovascular disease prevention, $600 for type 2 diabetes prevention, and $571 for type 2 diabetes management. The median change in healthcare cost per patient per year was -$82 for cardiovascular disease prevention and -$72 for type 2 diabetes management. For type 2 diabetes prevention, one study saw no change and another reported -$1,242 for healthcare cost. One study reported a favorable 1.8 return on investment from engaging community health workers for cardiovascular disease prevention. Median cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was $17,670 for cardiovascular disease prevention, $17,138 (mean) for type 2 diabetes prevention, and $35,837 for type 2 diabetes management. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions engaging community health workers are cost effective for cardiovascular disease prevention and type 2 diabetes management, based on a conservative $50,000 benchmark for cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Two cost per quality-adjusted life year estimates for type 2 diabetes prevention were far below the $50,000 benchmark.