Health Surveillance and Disease Prevention and Control / Chronic Diseases / CARMEN
Symposium Report—Lay Health Workers (Health Promoters) Project: Community Mobilization to Improve Cardiovascular Health in the Americas(Santiago, Chile, 17–18 October 2005) | ||||
Report (36 pp, PDF, 169 Kb)
Viewpoint of Health Promoters - PAHO CARMEN Page |
Co-sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA, and the PAHO CARMEN Initiative. Executive SummaryGeneral Objective: To exchange information on emerging models for programs that rely on health promoters to carry out community interventions and to take any lessons learned into account in the planning of future programs. Specific Objectives
Framework of the Symposium The definition ultimately arrived at for the concept of "health promoter" and the conclusions as to the usefulness and feasibility of incorporating this concept in cardiovascular health programs should be considered in the context of the title of this symposium: Community Mobilization to Improve Cardiovascular Health in the Americas. The primary goal, therefore, is to support the prevention and control of CVD by tapping community know-how to disseminate knowledge and change harmful behaviors and habits (areas where traditional health interventions have a poor track record). Secondarily, the goal is to use the strength of the organized community to improve health service coverage and the early detection of people at risk. Beyond facilitating changes in the behaviors of individuals, the strength of a community led and organized by health promoters can also bring about changes in social and environmental determinants to the benefit of cardiovascular health. All of this notwithstanding, experience demonstrates that the community's contribution-either through the health promoter model or community organizations that take part in health activities and decisions-has been used in different ways and for different purposes depending on the individual needs and reality of each country. Accordingly, several visions have emerged with respect to the role of health promoters, the scope of their work, and the characteristics required of people who assume that role. In this regard three important, but not necessarily exclusive, groups can be identified:
With respect to these models, the consensus was that health promoters can be especially valuable to the success of cardiovascular health programs at any stage of an intervention in a given country. This assertion is rooted in the fact that CVD can remain asymptomatic for a long period of time; are common and high-risk; are associated with behaviors and lifestyles; and, in most cases, are preventable or controllable. Therefore, information, education, and the development of know-how and skills for changing behavior are key to managing this health problem. Changing behavior is not achieved through information alone or the instructions of health workers. On the contrary, it is achieved through a combination of factors, which, in addition to the two mentioned above, include many others, such as motivation and attitude about the change of behavior, the feasibility of the change, personal capacity to cope with adverse conditions, positive reinforcement, peer support, and the availability of models to follow (the promoter may serve as one such model), favorable settings, etc. In this context, health promoters are regarded as important participants, given their capacity to reach people and communities with information and skills; health promoters appear to have greater potential for eliciting changes in behavior than classical health interventions, because they operate within the peoples' daily reality, gain their trust, and serve as a recognizable model within reach. The presentations of experiences involving health promoters were varied and described the general features of programs covering health problems other than cardiovascular disease. However, these presentations made it clear that health promoters perform their work under similar basic conditions, and that it appears both feasible and practical to employ these conditions in cardiovascular health programs. Moreover, there was also consensus that health promoters serve as a mechanism for delivering relevant information from the communities they serve to the health sector, which makes it possible to better match interventions to people's real needs. The group agreed on the following core elements for achieving successful results in cardiovascular health projects involving health promoters:
Additionally, there appears to be no significant difference between paid and volunteer health promoters (this will depend on each case) or in the number of health programs that each promoter works on at the same time. Special consideration was given to the idea that health promoters should be part of the community served and should work "from the inside." In some cases, health promoters from outside of the community are used, but the work they do is considered more as "health education" and not characteristic of health promoter activities, which are more comprehensive in nature. Likewise, emphasis was placed on the idea that the health promoter should be respected and considered another member of the health team, but by the same token, should not be integrated to the point where he/she is no longer perceived as representing the community but instead as a staff member of the system. One presentation emphasized the decision not to use health promoters, opting instead to formally incorporate organized community groups into the work of health facilities and the health system. This was achieved through "health committees" that participate on the boards of clinics offices, hospitals, and area health bureaus. Community representatives serving on these committees act as a bridge between the two parties; they participate in decision-making and work to help change beliefs and behavior in their communities. Toward the end of the Symposium, the participants worked to define baseline conditions and assess the Region's strengths and weaknesses in terms of implementing cardiovascular health programs involving the use of promoters. Among these conclusions, the following elements were considered positive, necessary, and, in large measure, present in most of the participating countries:
Forums such as this Symposium are seen as opportunities for countries to come together and share experiences to improve health interventions and the sustainability of such programs. The following common challenges and objectives were emphasized:
Inasmuch as this Symposium is part of a larger project still in development, which will continue to be improved in future forums and workshops, it is important to summarize those areas that generated group consensus and those that resulted in only general conclusions. This could be the starting point for future activities. Areas of Consensus
Areas under Discussion
At the close of the Symposium, the participants recognized and validated the work of health promoters in the various contexts described and considered health promoters a resource with vast potential in terms of cardiovascular disease, as agents of change, educators, and a means to perform limited health research and control interventions. | |||