Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Research evaluating community health worker (CHW) programs inherently involves these natural community leaders in the research process, and often represents community-based participatory research (CBPR). Interpreting the results of CHW intervention studies and replicating their findings requires knowledge of how CHWs are selected and trained. METHODS: A summative content analysis was performed to evaluate the description of CHW selection and training in the existing literature. First-level coding focused on contextual information about CHW programs. Second-level coding identified themes related to the selection and training of CHWs. RESULTS: There was inconsistent reporting of selection and training processes for CHWs in the existing literature. Common selection criteria included personal qualities desired of CHWs. Training processes for CHWs were more frequently reported. Wide variation in the length and content of CHW training exists in the reviewed studies. A conceptual model is presented for the role development of CHWs based on the results of this review, which is intended to guide future reporting of CHW programs in the intervention literature. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent reporting of CHW selection and training will allow consumers of intervention research to better interpret study findings. A standard approach to reporting selection and training processes will also more effectively guide the design and implementation of future CHW programs. All community-based researchers must find a balance between describing the research process and reporting more traditional scientific content. The current conceptual model provides a guide for standard reporting in the CHW literature.

Undiagnosed HIV infection remains a significant public health problem. To address this, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised testing recommendations, calling for routine opt-out HIV screening among adults in health care settings. However, these recommendations have not been widely implemented in primary care settings. We examined acceptability of opt-out HIV testing in an urban community health center and factors associated with accepting testing. From July 2007 to March 2008, physicians or a designated HIV tester approached patients presenting for primary care visits during 52 clinical sessions at an urban community health center. Patients were told they "would be tested for HIV unless they declined testing." Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, which required venipuncture, were used to test for HIV infection. We extracted demographic, clinical, and visit characteristics from medical records and examined associations between these characteristics and accepting HIV testing using logistic regression. Of 300 patients, 35% agreed to HIV testing, with no new HIV infections detected. Common reasons for declining testing were perceived low risk (54.4%) and self-reported HIV testing previously (45.1%). Younger age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.96-0.99), Hispanic ethnicity (AOR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.01-3.14), and having another blood test during the visit (AOR = 6.36, 95% CI = 3.58-11.28) were independently associated with accepting HIV testing. This study questions whether expanding HIV testing by conducting routine opt-out HIV testing in primary care settings is an acceptable strategy. It is important to understand how various testing strategies may affect HIV testing rates. In addition, further exploration of patients' reasons for declining HIV testing in these settings is warranted.

OBJECTIVES: Cross-language qualitative research occurs when a language barrier is present between researchers and participants. The language barrier is frequently mediated through the use of a translator or interpreter. The purpose of this analysis of cross-language qualitative research was threefold: (1) review the methods literature addressing cross-language research; (2) synthesize the methodological recommendations from the literature into a list of criteria that could evaluate how researchers methodologically managed translators and interpreters in their qualitative studies; (3) test these criteria on published cross-language qualitative studies. DATA SOURCES: A group of 40 purposively selected cross-language qualitative studies found in nursing and health sciences journals. REVIEW METHODS: The synthesis of the cross-language methods literature produced 14 criteria to evaluate how qualitative researchers managed the language barrier between themselves and their study participants. To test the criteria, the researcher conducted a summative content analysis framed by discourse analysis techniques of the 40 cross-language studies. RESULTS: The evaluation showed that only 6 out of 40 studies met all the criteria recommended by the cross-language methods literature for the production of trustworthy results in cross-language qualitative studies. Multiple inconsistencies, reflecting disadvantageous methodological choices by cross-language researchers, appeared in the remaining 33 studies. To name a few, these included rendering the translator or interpreter as an invisible part of the research process, failure to pilot test interview questions in the participant's language, no description of translator or interpreter credentials, failure to acknowledge translation as a limitation of the study, and inappropriate methodological frameworks for cross-language research. CONCLUSIONS: The finding about researchers making the role of the translator or interpreter invisible during the research process supports studies completed by other authors examining this issue. The analysis demonstrated that the criteria produced by this study may provide useful guidelines for evaluating cross-language research and for novice cross-language researchers designing their first studies. Finally, the study also indicates that researchers attempting cross-language studies need to address the methodological issues surrounding language barriers between researchers and participants more systematically.

Although HIV care providers are strategically situated to support their patients' alcohol reduction efforts, many do not do so, sometimes failing to view this support as consistent with their roles. Using data collected from 112 HIV providers in 7 hospital-based HIV Care Centers in the NYC metropolitan area, this paper examines the correlates of providers' role legitimacy as patients' alcohol reduction supporters. Results indicate that providers (1) responsible for a very large number of patients and (2) those with limited confidence in their own ability to give this assistance, but high confidence in their program's ability to do so, were less likely to have a high level of role legitimacy as patients' alcohol reduction supporters. Findings suggest the types of providers to target for alcohol reduction support training.