9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Advancing the Health of Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers in the United States: Identifying Gaps in the Existing Literature, 2021

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There are profound health inequities for agricultural workers. We sought to assess the literature on migrant and seasonal farmworker health with an eye toward health promotion interventions, special populations, use of community health workers (CHWs), and technology. We conducted a systematic mapping review by searching five databases in March 2021. Using quantitative content analysis after establishing interrater reliability, we coded titles and abstracts to assess 13 topics and six characteristics of the research such as its focus on health promotion, use of technology, and inclusion of CHWs. We identified 1,083 records. Just 8.2% of records described or evaluated a health promotion effort to intervene in farmworker well-being and even fewer (4.2%) examined unique populations of farmworkers such as indigenous farmworkers ( n = 11) or sexual minority farmworkers ( n = 1). A small body of literature focused on the role of CHWs or promotores most frequently described their role in implementing health interventions. The literature on farmworker health has gaps regarding health promotion interventions, special populations, and integration of CHWs into research projects. We offer suggestions to fill in identified gaps in the literature.

          Related collections

          Most cited references94

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

          The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Making research relevant: if it is an evidence-based practice, where's the practice-based evidence?

              L Green (2008)
              The usual search for explanations and solutions for the research-practice gap tends to analyze ways to communicate evidence-based practice guidelines to practitioners more efficiently and effectively from the end of a scientific pipeline. This examination of the pipeline looks upstream for ways in which the research itself is rendered increasingly irrelevant to the circumstances of practice by the process of vetting the research before it can qualify for inclusion in systematic reviews and the practice guidelines derived from them. It suggests a 'fallacy of the pipeline' implicit in one-way conceptualizations of translation, dissemination and delivery of research to practitioners. Secondly, it identifies a 'fallacy of the empty vessel' implicit in the assumptions underlying common characterizations of the practitioner as a recipient of evidence-based guidelines. Remedies are proposed that put emphasis on participatory approaches and more practice-based production of the research and more attention to external validity in the peer review, funding, publication and systematic reviews of research in producing evidence-based guidelines.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Promot Pract
                Health Promot Pract
                HPP
                sphpp
                Health Promotion Practice
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1524-8399
                1552-6372
                22 September 2021
                May 2022
                : 23
                : 3
                : 432-444
                Affiliations
                [1 ]East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA
                [2 ]North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
                [3 ]North Carolina Agromedicine Institute, Greenville, NC, USA
                [4 ]Student Action with Farmworkers, Durham, NC, USA
                Author notes
                [*]Jamie E. Bloss, Laupus Health Sciences Library, East Carolina University, 600 Moye Boulevard, Mail Stop 612, Greenville, NC 27834-4354, USA; e-mail: blossj19@ 123456ecu.edu .
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0706-7684
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9698-649X
                Article
                10.1177_15248399211033308
                10.1177/15248399211033308
                9096586
                34549654
                1928858c-33dd-4675-8428-51fa79d3d8bf
                © 2021 Society for Public Health Education

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: U.S. National Library of Medicine, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000092;
                Award ID: G08LM013198
                Categories
                Articles
                Health Promotion Practice in Rural Settings
                Custom metadata
                ts1

                agricultural workers’ diseases,farmers,review literature as topic,health status disparities,minority health

                Comments

                Comment on this article