A Systematic Review of Community Health Workers’ Role in Occupational Safety and Health Research
We systematically reviewed the literature to describe how community health workers (CHWs) are involved in occupational health and safety research and to identify areas for future research and research practice strategies. We searched five electronic databases from July 2015 through July 2016. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) study took place in the United States, (2) published as a full peer-review manuscript in English, (3) conducted occupational health and safety research, and (4) CHWs were involved in the research. The majority of 17 included studies took place in the agriculture industry (76%). CHWs were often involved in study implementation/design and research participant contact. Rationale for CHW involvement in research was due to local connections/acceptance, existing knowledge/skills, communication ability, and access to participants. Barriers to CHW involvement in research included competing demands on CHWs, recruitment and training difficulties, problems about research rigor and issues with proper data collection. Involving CHWs in occupational health and safety research has potential for improving inclusion of diverse, vulnerable and geographically isolated populations. Further research is needed to assess the challenges and opportunities of involving CHWs in this research and to develop evidence-based training strategies to teach CHWs to be lay-health researchers.
KeywordsCommunity health workers Occupational safety and health Latino workers
The work presented in this paper was supported by the CDC/NIOSH Cooperative Agreement 5U54OH007547-16. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC/NIOSH.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Each author of this paper declares that she has no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Informed Consent/Human Research Protection
This is a systematic review of published articles. Institutional review board approval was not needed.
- 3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA): National Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Agenda. Washington, D.C.: NIOSH; 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nora/comment/agendas/AgForFish/pdfs/ AgForFishDec2008.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2017.
- 7.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Occupational Health Disparities. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ programs/ohd/default.html. Accessed 2 October 2017.
- 11.Bureau of Labor Statistics. Foreign-born workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2015. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Labor; 2016. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2017.
- 12.Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity, 2014. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Labor; 2015. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/2015/home.htm. Accessed 4 April 2017.
- 16.Kalleberg AL. Good jobs, bad jobs: the rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2011.Google Scholar
- 20.Gong F, Baron S, Ayala L, Stock L, McDevitt S, Heaney C. The role for community-based participatory research in formulating policy initiatives: promoting safety and health for in-home care workers and their consumers. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(Suppl 3):S531–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.American Public Health Association. Community health workers. https://www.apha.org/apha-communities/member-sections/community-health-workers. Accessed 4 April 2017.
- 26.U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Community Health Worker National Workforce Study. Health Resources Services Administration, Bureau of Health Professions. 2007. http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/chwstudy2007.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2017.
- 27.Bureau of Labor Statistics. Union Members Summary. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Labor; 2017. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm. Accessed 4 April 2017.
- 28.U. S. Government Accountability Office. Contingent Workforce. Washington. D.C.: US. Government Accountability Office; 2015. GAO-15-168R http://www.gao.gov/assets/ 670/669766.pdf.
- 33.Law M, Stewart D, Pollock N, Letts L, Bosch J, Westmorland M. (1998). Guidelines for critical review form—quantitative studies. 1998. http://srs-mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Guidelines-for-Critical-Review-Form-Quantiative-Studies-English.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2017.
- 34.National Institutes of Health. Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/cohort. Accessed 4 April 2017.
- 49.Salvatore AL, Castorina R, Camacho J, et al. Home-based community health worker intervention to reduce pesticide exposures to farmworkers’ children: a randomized-controlled trial. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2015;0:1–5.Google Scholar
- 55.Bureau of Labor Statistics. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2015. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Labor; 2016. https://www.bls.gov/ news. release/cfoi.nr0.htm. Accessed 4 April 2017.
- 56.Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Requiring Days Away from Work, 2015. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Labor; 2016. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh2.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2017.
- 65.National Community Health Worker Advocacy Survey: 2014 Preliminary Data Report for the United States and Territories. Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, Arizona Prevention Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar