Health affairs scholar · 2026
Pandemic era expansion of state laws governing the professionalization of community health workers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Weber-Fares Regen, Cheung Thomas, Washburn David J, Callaghan Timothy, LaFleur Megan, Martinez Denise, Muthyala Deepak, Warren Keegan, Sage William, Schmit Cason D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Community Health Workers (CHWs) are trusted public health workers who strengthen healthcare access, quality, and cultural responsiveness by addressing social determinants of health. While CHW services show value, professionalization policies, including certification and training requirements, remain debated.
METHODS: To understand these policies, we conducted an empirical legal mapping study of CHW professionalism laws in 54 US jurisdictions (50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and Guam) in effect in 2019 and 2024 following consensus legal mapping guidelines for legal research, coding, and quality control.
RESULTS: We screened 2248 relevant laws, with 31 jurisdictions modifying CHW professionalization laws. Between 2019 and 2024, the number of jurisdictions with consistent terminology (16 to 21), defined CHW roles (15 to 21), laws concerning certification (14 to 22), and laws requiring training for practice or certification (21 to 23) increased. Jurisdictions with formal education requirements declined (12 to 8), while jurisdictions requiring training programs increased (12 to 20).
CONCLUSION: CHW professionalization requires careful navigation. While increased professionalism might enhance workforce stability, it risks creating barriers to entry and undermining CHWs' community-rooted identity. Future research is needed to identify the balance between CHW professionalism and the preservation of CHW status as trusted members of the communities they serve.
METHODS: To understand these policies, we conducted an empirical legal mapping study of CHW professionalism laws in 54 US jurisdictions (50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and Guam) in effect in 2019 and 2024 following consensus legal mapping guidelines for legal research, coding, and quality control.
RESULTS: We screened 2248 relevant laws, with 31 jurisdictions modifying CHW professionalization laws. Between 2019 and 2024, the number of jurisdictions with consistent terminology (16 to 21), defined CHW roles (15 to 21), laws concerning certification (14 to 22), and laws requiring training for practice or certification (21 to 23) increased. Jurisdictions with formal education requirements declined (12 to 8), while jurisdictions requiring training programs increased (12 to 20).
CONCLUSION: CHW professionalization requires careful navigation. While increased professionalism might enhance workforce stability, it risks creating barriers to entry and undermining CHWs' community-rooted identity. Future research is needed to identify the balance between CHW professionalism and the preservation of CHW status as trusted members of the communities they serve.