Benedict Hayhoe1, Thomas E Cowling1,2, Virimchi Pillutla3, Priya Garg4, Azeem Majeed1, Matthew Harris1,5. 1. 1 Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W6 8RP, UK. 2. 2 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK. 3. 3 Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, VIC 3168 Australia. 4. 4 School of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand. 5. 5 Centre for Health Policy, Institute of Global Health Innovation, St Marys Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To model cost and benefit of a national community health worker workforce. DESIGN: Modelling exercise based on all general practices in England. SETTING: United Kingdom National Health Service Primary Care. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. DATA SOURCES: Publicly available data on general practice demographics, population density, household size, salary scales and screening and immunisation uptake. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated numbers of community health workers needed, anticipated workload and likely benefits to patients. RESULTS: Conservative modelling suggests that 110,585 community health workers would be needed to cover the general practice registered population in England, costing £2.22bn annually. Assuming community health workerss could engage with and successfully refer 20% of eligible unscreened or unimmunised individuals, an additional 753,592 cervical cancer screenings, 365,166 breast cancer screenings and 482,924 bowel cancer screenings could be expected within respective review periods. A total of 16,398 additional children annually could receive their MMR1 at 12 months and 24,716 their MMR2 at five years of age. Community health workerss would also provide home-based health promotion and lifestyle support to patients with chronic disease. CONCLUSION: A scaled community health worker workforce integrated into primary care may be a valuable policy alternative. Pilot studies are required to establish feasibility and impact in NHS primary care.
OBJECTIVE: To model cost and benefit of a national community health worker workforce. DESIGN: Modelling exercise based on all general practices in England. SETTING: United Kingdom National Health Service Primary Care. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. DATA SOURCES: Publicly available data on general practice demographics, population density, household size, salary scales and screening and immunisation uptake. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated numbers of community health workers needed, anticipated workload and likely benefits to patients. RESULTS: Conservative modelling suggests that 110,585 community health workers would be needed to cover the general practice registered population in England, costing £2.22bn annually. Assuming community health workerss could engage with and successfully refer 20% of eligible unscreened or unimmunised individuals, an additional 753,592 cervical cancer screenings, 365,166 breast cancer screenings and 482,924 bowel cancer screenings could be expected within respective review periods. A total of 16,398 additional children annually could receive their MMR1 at 12 months and 24,716 their MMR2 at five years of age. Community health workerss would also provide home-based health promotion and lifestyle support to patients with chronic disease. CONCLUSION: A scaled community health worker workforce integrated into primary care may be a valuable policy alternative. Pilot studies are required to establish feasibility and impact in NHS primary care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical; family medicine; general practice/family medicine; health policy; non-clinical; public health
Authors: Meera Viswanathan; Jennifer L Kraschnewski; Brett Nishikawa; Laura C Morgan; Amanda A Honeycutt; Patricia Thieda; Kathleen N Lohr; Daniel E Jonas Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Roy C Baron; Barbara K Rimer; Rosalind A Breslow; Ralph J Coates; Jon Kerner; Stephanie Melillo; Nancy Habarta; Geetika P Kalra; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Katherine M Wilson; Nancy C Lee; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Steven S Coughlin; Peter A Briss Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: F D Richard Hobbs; Clare Bankhead; Toqir Mukhtar; Sarah Stevens; Rafael Perera-Salazar; Tim Holt; Chris Salisbury Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andy Haines; Enrique Falceto de Barros; Anita Berlin; David L Heymann; Matthew J Harris Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Dorien Vanden Bossche; Susan Lagaert; Sara Willems; Peter Decat Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 3.390