LHWs vs usual care: Morbidity ‐ care seeking practice hospital record review
LHWs showed no clear difference in morbidity ‐ care seeking practice hospital record review compared with usual care (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
LHWs vs usual care Morbidity ‐ care seeking practice hospital record review · patients with reducing mortality and morbidity in children <5 years LHWs showed no clear difference in morbidity ‐ care seeking practice hospital record review compared with usual care (low certainty). Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of… (2010) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.33 [0.86, 2.05] | 3 studies · 11195 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases 2010 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.