There is a growing body of evidence that lay health worker (LHW) interventions are a cost-effective model of care which can improve health outcomes and reduce the burden on existing health and community services. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of information to specify which intervention characteristics contribute to their success. This realist review aimed to identify how, why and in what context UK-based LHW interventions aimed at improving child health parenting behaviours can lead to health promoting behaviour and improve child health outcomes. Results show that the ‘peerness’ of the LHW role gives parents a sense of equality with, and trust in, LHWs which facilitates continued engagement with interventions and sustained positive behaviour. Training and support is crucial to retention of LHWs, enhancing confidence and perceived value of the role in the context of the intervention. LHW interventions which are embedded within communities as a result of stakeholder buy-in demonstrate stable models of delivery and ease the burden on existing health and community services. In conclusion, this review found that LHW interventions can positively influence child health parenting behaviours in certain contexts and provide programme theory to inform future development of LHW interventions.
BeakeSMcCourtCRowanC, et al. (2005) Evaluation of the use of health care assistants to support disadvantaged women breastfeeding in the community. Maternal and Child Nutrition1: 32–43.
2.
BorrelliBTooleyEMScott-SheldonLA (2015) Motivational interviewing for parent-child health interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatric Dentistry37: 254–265.
3.
BullFCKreuterMWScharffDP (1999) Effects of tailored, personalized and general health messages on physical activity. Patient Education and Counseling36: 181–192.
4.
CookTWillsJ (2012) Engaging with marginalized communities: the experiences of London health trainers. Perspectives in Public Health132: 221–227.
5.
DalkienSMGreenhalghJJonesD, et al. (2015) What’s in a mechanism? development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implementation Science10: 49.
6.
DennisC-L (2003) Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies40: 321–332.
7.
Des JarlaisDCLylesCCrepazN, et al. (2004) Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health94: 361–366.
8.
DugdillLCoffeyMCoufopoulosA, et al. (2009) Developing new community health roles: can reflective learning drive professional practice?Reflective Practice10: 121–130.
9.
DykesF (2005) Government funded breastfeeding peer support projects: implications for practice. Maternal and Child Nutrition1: 21–31.
10.
EavesJWilliamsNGilmartinA, et al. (2017) Process evaluation of the integrated childsmile programme. Report of the Third Tranche of Fieldwork.
11.
EngEParkerEHarlanC (1997) Lay health advisor intervention strategies: a continuum from natural helping to paraprofessional helping. Health Education & Behavior24: 413–417.
12.
EylesHCMhurchuCN (2009) Does tailoring make a difference? a systematic review of the long-term effectiveness of tailored nutrition education for adults. Nutrition Reviews67: 464–480.
13.
FenwickJBarclayLSchmiedV (2001) “Chatting': an important clinical tool in facilitating mothering in neonatal nurseries. Journal of Advanced Nursing33: 583–593.
14.
GaleNKKenyonSMacArthurC, et al. (2018) Synthetic social support: theorizing lay health worker interventions. Social Science & Medicine196: 96–105.
15.
GlentonCColvinCJCarlsenB, et al. (2013) Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health: qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2013.
16.
HaiderSJChangLVBoltonTA, et al. (2014) An evaluation of the effects of a breastfeeding support program on health outcomes. Health services research49: 2017.
17.
HodginsFSherriffAGnichW, et al. (2018) The effectiveness of dental health support workers at linking families with primary care dental practices: a population-wide data linkage cohort study. BMC Oral Health18: 191.
18.
HoffmannTCGlasziouPPBoutronI, et al. (2014) Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ: British Medical Journal348: g1687.
19.
IngramJRosserJJacksonD (2005). Breastfeeding peer supporters and a community support group: evaluating their effectiveness. Maternal and Child Nutrition1: 111–118.
20.
JagoshJPluyePMacaulayA, et al. (2011) Assessing the outcomes of participatory research: protocol for identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesizing the literature for realist review. Implementation Science6: 24.
21.
KreuterMWOswaldDLBullFC, et al. (2000) Are tailored health education materials always more effective than non-tailored materials?Health Education Research15: 305–315.
22.
LewinSDickJPondP, et al. (2005) Lay health workers in primary and community health care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews25: CD004015
23.
LewinSMunabi-BabigumiraSGlentonC, et al. (2010) Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews3: CD004015.
24.
LewinSABabigumiraSMBosch-CapblanchX, et al. (2006) Lay health workers in primary and community health care: a systematic review of trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
25.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ, et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Italian Journal of Public Health6: 354–391.
26.
LundahlBMoleniTBurkeBL, et al. (2013) Motivational interviewing in medical care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Patient Education and Counseling93: 157–168.
27.
McInnesRJStoneDH (2001) The process of implementing a community-based peer breast-feeding support programme: the Glasgow experience. Midwifery17: 65–73.
28.
MackenzieM (2006) Benefit or burden: introducing paraprofessional support staff to health visiting teams: the case of starting well. Health and Social Care in the Community14: 523–531.
29.
MackenzieM (2008) 'Doing' public health and 'making' public health practitioners: putting policy into practice in 'starting well'. Social Science & Medicine67: 1028–1037.
30.
MacphersonLMBallGEKingP, et al. (2015) Childsmile: the child oral health improvement programme in Scotland. Primary Dental Journal4: 33–37.
31.
MarmotMAllenJBoyceT, et al. (2020) Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years on. London: Institute of Health Equity.
32.
MitchellAEMorawskaAMihelicM (2019) A systematic review of parenting interventions for child chronic health conditions. Journal of Child Health Care24(4): 603–628.
33.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine6: e1000097.
34.
NoarSMBenacCNHarrisMS (2007) Does tailoring matter? meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin133: 673–693.
35.
NockMPhotosV (2006) Parent motivation to participate in treatment: assessment and prediction of subsequent participation. Journal of Child and Family Studies15: 34–358.
36.
OpokuDStephaniVQuentinW (2017) A realist review of mobile phone-based health interventions for non-communicable disease management in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Medicine15: 24.
37.
PawsonRGreenhalghTHarveyG, et al. (2004) Realist synthesis: an introduction. ESRC Research Methods Programme. Working paper.
38.
ProchaskaJDiClementeC (1984) The Transtheoretical Approach: Towards a Systematic Eclectic Frame. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones Irwin.
39.
SchulzKFAltmanDGMoherD (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ: British Medical Journal8: 18.
40.
ShearnKAllmarkPPiercyH, et al. (2017). Building realist program theory for large complex and messy interventions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods16: 1–11.
41.
SmithSRandhawaG (2006) Embracing diversity in community healthcare settings: developing a client-centred approach to weaning support. Diversity in Health and Social Care3: 47–53.
42.
SouthJ.KinsellaKMeahA (2012) Lay perspectives on lay health worker roles, boundaries and participation within three UK community-based health promotion projects. Health Education Research27: 656–670.
43.
SridharanSGnichWMoffatV, et al. (2008) Independent Evaluation of Have a Heart Paisley Phase 2. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
44.
SuppiahC (2008) A Collective Evaluation of Community Parent Programmes what Works Well and in what Circumstances?South West Essex: NHS Research Consortium.
45.
ThomsonGDykesFHurleyMA, et al. (2012) Incentives as connectors: insights into a breastfeeding incentive intervention in a disadvantaged area of North-West England. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth12: 22.
46.
TongASainsburyPCraigJ (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care19: 349–357.
47.
TrickeyHThomsonGGrantA, et al. (2018) A realist review of one-to-one breastfeeding peer support experiments conducted in developed country settings. Maternal & Child Nutrition14(1): e12559.
48.
WanyonyiKLThemessl-HuberMHumphrisG, et al. (2011) A systematic review and meta-analysis of face-to-face communication of tailored health messages: implications for practice. Patient Education and Counseling85: 348–355.
49.
WattRMcGlonePRussellJ, et al. (2006) The process of establishing, implementing and maintaining a social support infant feeding programme. Public Health Nutrition9: 714–721.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
