Cardiovascular Disease Screening By Community Health Workers Can Be Cost-Effective In Low-Resource Countries.

In low-resource settings, a physician is not always available. We recently demonstrated that community health workers-instead of physicians or nurses-can efficiently screen adults for cardiovascular disease in South Africa, Mexico, and Guatemala. In this analysis we sought to determine the health and economic impacts of shifting this screening to community health workers equipped with either a paper-based or a mobile phone-based screening tool. We found that screening by community health workers was very cost-effective or even cost-saving in all three countries, compared to the usual clinic-based screening. The mobile application emerged as the most cost-effective strategy because it could save more lives than the paper tool at minimal extra cost. Our modeling indicated that screening by community health workers, combined with improved treatment rates, would increase the number of deaths averted from 15,000 to 110,000, compared to standard care. Policy makers should promote greater acceptance of community health workers by both national populations and health professionals and should increase their commitment to treating cardiovascular disease and making medications available.

Referral outcomes of individuals identified at high risk of cardiovascular disease by community health workers in Bangladesh, Guatemala, Mexico, and South Africa.

BACKGROUND: We have found that community health workers (CHWs) with appropriate training are able to accurately identify people at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in the community who would benefit from the introduction of preventative management, in Bangladesh, Guatemala, Mexico, and South Africa. This paper examines the attendance pattern for those individuals who were so identified and referred to a health care facility for further assessment and management. DESIGN: Patient records from the health centres in each site were reviewed for data on diagnoses made and treatment commenced. Reasons for non-attendance were sought from participants who had not attended after being referred. Qualitative data were collected from study coordinators regarding their experiences in obtaining the records and conducting the record reviews. The perspectives of CHWs and community members, who were screened, were also obtained. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent (96/263) of those referred attended follow-up: 36 of 52 (69%) were urgent and 60 of 211 (28.4%) were non-urgent referrals. A diagnosis of hypertension (HTN) was made in 69% of urgent referrals and 37% of non-urgent referrals with treatment instituted in all cases. Reasons for non-attendance included limited self-perception of risk, associated costs, health system obstacles, and lack of trust in CHWs to conduct CVD risk assessments and to refer community members into the health system. CONCLUSIONS: The existing barriers to referral in the health care systems negatively impact the gains to be had through screening by training CHWs in the use of a simple risk assessment tool. The new diagnoses of HTN and commencement on treatment in those that attended referrals underscores the value of having persons at the highest risk identified in the community setting and referred to a clinic for further evaluation and treatment.