Advertisement

Journal of Community Health

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 13–26 | Cite as

Evaluation of a peer health worker prenatal outreach and education program for Hispanic farmworker families

  • Louise H. Warrick
  • Anita H. Wood
  • Joel S. Meister
  • Jill G. de Zapien
Articles

Abstract

This article contains the findings from an evaluation of a prenatal education program to Hispanic migrant farmworker families using peer health workers. The focus of the evaluation was on establishing the validity of the intervention model in the target population. Data are presented on the program setting, characteristics of the clients served, and effects of the educational program on the clients and peer health workers. The evaluation identified factors that established confidence in the program model: (1) there were existing barriers to health care and health information; (2) the program served a culturally specific and disadvantaged population; (3) the prenatal curriculum was culturally sensitive; (4) the peer workers were accepted by the target community; and (5) the model did not threaten the medical community. The directions for future research are presented.

Keywords

Public Health Health Care Health Promotion Education Program Disease Prevention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McCormick MC, Brooks-Gunn J, Shorter T, Holmes JH, Wallace CY, Heagarty MC, Outreach as case finding: Its effect on enrollment in prenatal care.Med Care 27:103–111, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Watkins E, Larson K, Harlan C, et al.Migrant Lay Health Advisors: A Strategy For Health Promotion. Chapel Hill, NC: School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giblin PT, Effective utilization and evaluation of indigenous health care workers.Public Health Rep 104:361–368, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halpern R, Larner M, Lay family support during pregnancy and infancy.Infant Mental Health Journal 8:130–143, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heins HC, Nance NW, Ferguson JE, Social support in improving perinatal outcome: The resource mothers program.Obstet Gynecol 70:263–266, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roberts BJ, Mico PR, Clark EW, An experimental study of two approaches to communication.Am J Public Health 53:1361–1381, 1963.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellin LE, Killeen M, Mazeika JJ, Preparing public health subprofessionals recruited from the poverty group-lessons from an OEO workstudy program.Am J Public Health 57:242–252, 1967.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kent JA, Smith CH, Involving the urban poor in health services through accommodation—the employment of neighborhood representatives.Am J Public Health 57:997–1003, 1967.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conn RH, Using health education aides in counseling pregnant women.Public Health Rep 83:979–982, 1968.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Westheimer RK, Cattell SH, Connell E, Kaufman SA, Swartz DP, Use of paraprofessionals to motivate women to return for post partum checkup.Public Health Rep 85:625–635, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stewart JC, Hood WR, Using workers from “hard-core” areas to increase immunization levels.Public Health Rep 85:177–185, 1970.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cauffmann JG, Wingert WA, Friedman DB, Warburton EA, Hanes B, Community health aides: How effective are they?Public Health Rep 60:1904–1909, 1970.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzalez JL, Woodward LH, Expanding roles for health assistants in a model cities health program.Public Health Rep 89:145–151, 1974.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moore FI, Ballinger P, Beasley JD, Influence of postpartum home visits on postpartum clinic attendance.Public Health Rep 89:361–364, 1974.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wingert WA, Grubbs J, Lenoski EF, Friedman DB, Effectiveness and efficiency of indigenous health aides in a pediatric outpatient department.Am J Public Health 65:849–857, 1975.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacobs FH: The five-tiered approach to evaluation: Context and implementation. In HB Weiss and FH Jacobs (Eds.)Evaluating Family Programs New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1988, Pp. 37–68.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Braverman MT, Campbell DT: Facilitating the development of health promotion programs: Recommendations for researchers and funders. In MT Braverman (Ed.)New Directions for Program Evaluation (43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989, Pp. 5–18.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campbell DT: Relabeling internal and external validity for applied social scientists. In WK Trochim (Ed.)New Directions for Program Evaluation (31) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986, Pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kay MA: Health and Illness in a Mexican Barrio. In EH Spicer (Ed.)Ethnic Medicine In The Southwest Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press, 1977: Pp. 99–166.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    de la Torre A, Rush LM, The effects of health care access on maternal and migrant seasonal farm worker women infant health of California.Border Health: Salud Fronteriza 3:18–25, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Engle PL, Scrimshaw SC, Zambrana RE, Dunkel-Schetter C, Prenatal and postnatal anxiety in Los Angeles.Health Psychol 9:285–299, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vaughan JP, Barefoot or professional?J Trop Med Hyg 83:3–10, 1980.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D'Onofrio CN, Aides—pain or panacea?Public Health Rep 85:788–801, 1970.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise H. Warrick
  • Anita H. Wood
  • Joel S. Meister
    • 1
  • Jill G. de Zapien
  1. 1.Department of Family and Community MedicineRural Health OfficeTucson

Personalised recommendations