OHIO COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKER STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT: KEY FINDINGS THAT IMPACT PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN OHIO

Whalen Smith CN1, Carter N1, Kirkland C1, Robinson H1
1The Ohio Colleges of Medicine Government Resource Center, Columbus, United States

Background: In Ohio, 59.5% of people with disabilities (PWDs) do not receive needed healthcare compared to 27% of people without disabilities. As a result, PWDs report worse health outcomes and less utilization of preventative screenings in Ohio. Referring PWDs to community health workers (CHWs) may be one strategy to address the social determinants of health for PWDs in Ohio, which impact access to needed healthcare. According to the American Public Health Association, a CHW is “a frontline public health worker who is a trusted member and/or has an unusually close understanding of the community served. This trusting relationship enables the worker to serve as a liaison/link/intermediary between health/social services and the community to facilitate access to services and improve the quality and cultural competence of service delivery.”

Purpose: To determine if, and under what circumstances, CHWs in Ohio currently work with PWDs to understand CHW capacity to meet the needs of PWDs in Ohio.

Methods: A statewide CHW capacity assessment was conducted by the authors to identify how CHWs are currently utilized in Ohio. Under the guidance of the state sponsors and an advisory committee, a secondary data collection, eleven key informant interviews, five focus groups of CHWs, a statewide survey for CHWs, and a statewide survey for employers/supervisors of CHWs were conducted to compile comprehensive data on CHW capacity in Ohio. In order to determine if CHWs in Ohio currently work with PWDs, a secondary data analysis was conducted from the original assessment report. All findings pertaining to PWDs were analyzed using descriptive statistics from the assessment results.

Results: There are over 850 certified and non-certified CHWs in Ohio. Of the CHWs surveyed, 16.8% reported that PWDs (physical, sensory, and/or intellectual) and 18.7% reported that children and youth with special healthcare needs (CYSHCNs) are one of their target populations. The top five settings CHWs who serve PWDs and CYSHCNs practice in were: managed care organizations, schools, hospitals, local health departments, and federally qualified health centers. The top five job responsibilities were educating clients about how to use health and social services, motivating clients to obtain care and other services, connecting clients to community resources, providing clients with information to understand and manage their health condition, and conducting home visits to provide education, assessment, and social support.

Conclusion(s): This assessment revealed that CHWs are a valued member of the health team in Ohio. It appears that a small percentage of CHWs are currently working with PWDs in a variety of settings. Of those that are working with PWDs, it is clear that they are addressing access to healthcare through educating, motivating, and connecting clients to needed health information and resources.

Implications: CHWs are currently underutilized to address access to care issues for PWDs in Ohio. Ohio is looking at the next steps from this assessment of how to better integrate CHWs on the health team, including working with PWDs. Physical and occupational therapists will be the first targeted professionals to educate on how to collaborate with CHWs in order to better meet the needs of PWDs.

Keywords: Community Health Worker, CHW, Disability

Funding acknowledgements: The Ohio Department of Health sponsored this assessment: grant number 5 NU58DP004826-05-00 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Topic: Disability & rehabilitation

Ethics approval required: No
Institution: N/A
Ethics committee: N/A
Reason not required: The CHW assessment, which was the source of data for this secondary data analysis to describe CHW capacity to work with PWDs in Ohio, was commissioned by the Ohio Department of Health. An Ohio Department of Health Institutional Review Board (IRB) representative reviewed the work and advised that ethics approval was not needed as this assessment did not meet the definition of research. There was no experimental design and was not designed to generate generalizable knowledge. The data that is reported in this abstract is a secondary data analysis of data collected from that assessment.


All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.

Back to the listing