Objective To test if participation in the Health Start Programme, an Arizona statewide Community Health Worker (CHW) maternal and child health (MCH) home visiting programme, reduced rates of low birth weight (LBW), very LBW (VLBW), extremely LBW (ELBW) and preterm birth (PTB). Design Quasi-experimental retrospective study using propensity score matching of Health Start Programme enrolment data to state birth certificate records for years 2006–2016. Setting Arizona is uniquely racially and ethnically diverse with comparatively higher proportions of Latino and American Indian residents and a smaller proportion of African Americans. Participants 7212 Health Start Programme mothers matched to non-participants based on demographic, socioeconomic and geographic characteristics, health conditions and previous birth experiences. Intervention A statewide CHW MCH home visiting programme. Primary and secondary outcome measures LBW, VLBW, ELBW and PTB. Results Using Health Start Programme’s administrative data and birth certificate data from 2006 to 2016, we identified 7212 Health Start Programme participants and 53 948 matches. Programme participation is associated with decreases in adverse birth outcomes for most subgroups. Health Start participation is associated with statistically significant lower rates of LBW among American Indian women (38%; average treatment-on-the-treated effect (ATT): 2.30; 95% CI −4.07 to –0.53) and mothers with a pre-existing health risk (25%; ATT: -3.06; 95% CI −5.82 to –0.30). Among Latina mothers, Health Start Programme participation is associated with statistically significant lower rates of VLBW (36%; ATT: 0.35; 95% CI −0.69 to –0.01) and ELBW (62%; ATT: 0.31; 95% CI (−0.52 to –0.10)). Finally, Health Start Programme participation is associated with a statistically significant lower rate of PTB for teen mothers (30%; ATT: 2.81; 95% CI −4.71 to –0.91). Other results were not statistically significant. Conclusion A state health department-operated MCH home visiting intervention that employs CHWs as the primary interventionist may contribute to the reduction of LBW, VLBW, ELBW and PTB and could improve birth outcomes statewide, especially among women and children at increased risk for MCH inequity.

Background: Arizona’s Health Start Program is a statewide community health worker (CHW) maternal and child health home visiting intervention. The objective of this study was to test if participation in Health Start during 2006–2016 improved early childhood vaccination completion rates. Methods: This retrospective study used 11 years of administrative, birth certificate, and immunization records. Propensity score matching was used to identify control groups, based on demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics. Results are reported by historically disadvantaged subgroups and/or with a history of low vaccine uptake, including Hispanic/Latinx and American Indian children, and children of low socioeconomic status and from rural areas, children with teen mothers and first-born children. The average treatment-on-the-treated (ATT) effect estimated the impact of Health Start on timely completion of seven early childhood vaccine series: diphtheria/tetanus toxoids and acellular/whole-cell pertussis (DTaP/DTP), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), hepatitis B (Hep. B), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13), poliovirus, and varicella. Results: Vaccination completion rates (by age five) were 5.0% points higher for Health Start children as a group, and on average 5.0% points higher for several subgroups of mothers: women from rural border counties (ATT 5.8), Hispanic/Latinx women (ATT 4.8), American Indian women (ATT 4.8), women with less than high school education (ATT 5.0), teen mothers (ATT 6.1), and primipara women (ATT 4.5), compared to matched control groups (p-value ≤ 0.05). Time-to-event analyses show Health Start children complete vaccination sooner, with a hazard rate for full vaccination 13% higher than their matches. Conclusion: A state-operated home visiting intervention with CHWs as the primary interventionist can effectively promote early childhood vaccine completion, which may reduce the incidence of preventable diseases and subsequently improve children’s health. Effects of CHW interventions on vaccination uptake is particularly relevant given the rise in vaccine-preventable diseases in the US and globally. Trial registration: Approved by the University of Arizona Research Institutional Review Board (Protocol 1701128802), 25 January 2017.

The COVID-19 pandemic has both highlighted and worsened existing health inequities among communities of color and structurally vulnerable populations. Community Health Workers, inclusive of Community Health Representatives (CHW/Rs) have entered the spotlight as essential to COVID-19 prevention and control. To learn about community experiences and perspectives related to COVID-19 and inform CHW/R workforce capacity building efforts, a series of focus groups were conducted with CHW/Rs throughout Arizona at two time points in 2021. Throughout the data collection and analysis process, researchers and community partners engaged in ongoing and open dialogue about what CHW/Rs on the ground were reporting as priority community concerns, needs, and challenges. Thus, CHW/Rs informed the development of culturally and linguistically relevant health education messages, materials, and training for CHW/Rs. In this community case study, we detail the efforts of partnership between a statewide CHW professional association and an academic research team that facilitated rapid decision-making and knowledge sharing to create community-grounded tools and resources supportive of CHW/R workforce capacity building in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Over the past decade, public health research and practice sectors have shifted their focus away from identifying health disparities and toward addressing the social, environmental, and economic determinants of health equity. Given the complex and interrelated nature of these determinants, developing policies that will advance health equity requires collaboration across sectors outside of health. However, engaging various stakeholder groups, tapping into their unique knowledge systems, and identifying common objectives across sectors is difficult and time consuming and can impede collaborative efforts. Objective: The Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative at Northern Arizona University, in partnership with an 11-member community advisory council, is addressing this need with a joint community-campus effort to develop and implement a Regional Health Equity Survey (RHES) designed to generate an interdisciplinary body of knowledge, which will be used to guide future multisectoral action for improving community health and well-being. Methods: Researchers and community partners used facilitated discussions and free listing techniques to generate survey items. The community partners pilot tested the survey instrument to evaluate its feasibility and duration before survey administration. Respondent-driven sampling was used to ensure that participants included leadership from across all sectors and regions of northern Arizona. Results: Over the course of 6 months, 206 participants representing 13 sectors across the 5 counties of northern Arizona were recruited to participate in an RHES. Survey response rates, completion percentage, and sector representation were used to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of using a community-engaged apporach for survey development and participant recruitment. The findings describe the current capacity to impact health equity by using a multisectoral approach in northern Arizona. Conclusions: The Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative effectively engaged community members to assist with the development and implementation of an RHES aimed at understanding and promoting multisectoral action on the root causes of health inequity. The results will help to build research and evaluation capacity to address the social, economic, and environmental conditions of health inequity in the region.

Indigenous and American Indian Alaskan Native (AI/AN) community members are systematically underrepresented in clinical trial research. This paper focuses on exploratory steps to partner with Native Nations of Arizona to engage Community Health Representatives (CHR) as a trusted source for building COVID-19 clinical trial research, including vaccine trials awareness. CHRs are frontline public health workers who apply a unique understanding of the experience, language, and culture of the population served. This workforce has entered the spotlight as essential to the prevention and control of COVID-19. Methods: Three Tribal CHR programs were engaged to develop and refine culturally centered educational materials and a pre-post survey using a consensus-based decision-making approach. CHRs used these materials in brief education sessions during regular client home visits and community events. Results: At 30 days post CHR intervention, participants (N = 165) demonstrated significantly increased awareness about and ability to enroll in COVID-19 treatment and vaccine trials. Participants also described a significant increase in trust in researchers, decreased perceived barriers related to cost for participation in a clinical trial, and improved belief that participation in a COVID-19 clinical trial for treatment was considered a benefit to American Indian and Alaskan Native people. Conclusion: CHRs as trusted sources of information, coupled with culturally centered education materials designed by CHRs for CHR clients, demonstrated a promising approach to improved awareness of clinical trial research generally and COVID-19 trials specifically among Indigenous and American Indian community members of Arizona.

Background: Multisectoral and public–private partnerships are critical in building the necessary infrastructure, policy, and political will to ameliorate health inequity. A focus on health equity by researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers prioritizes action to address the systematic, avoidable, and unjust differences in health status across population groups sustained over time and generations that are beyond the control of individuals. Health equity requires a collective process in shaping the health and wellbeing of the communities in which we live, learn, work, play, and grow. This paper explores multisectoral leaders’ understanding of the social, environmental, and economic conditions that produce and sustain health inequity in northern Arizona, a geographically expansive, largely rural, and culturally diverse region. Methods: Data are drawn from the Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative’s Regional Health Equity Survey (RHES). The RHES is a community-engaged, cross-sectional online survey comprised of 31 close-ended and 17 open-ended questions. Created to assess cross-sectoral regional and collective capacity to address health inequity and inform multisectoral action for improving community health, the RHES targeted leaders representing five rural northern Arizona counties and 13 sectors. Select open-ended questions were analyzed using an a priori coding scheme and emergent coding with thematic analysis. Results: Although leaders were provided the definition and asked to describe the root causes of inequities, the majority of leaders described social determinants of health (SDoH). When leaders described root causes of health inequity, they articulated systemic factors affecting their communities, describing discrimination and unequal allocation of power and resources. Most leaders described the SDoH by discussing compounding factors of poverty, transportation, housing, and rurality among others, that together exacerbate inequity. Leaders also identified specific strategies to address SDoH and advance health equity in their communities, ranging from providing direct services to activating partnerships across organizations and sectors in advocacy for policy change. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that community leaders in the northern Arizona region acknowledge the importance of multisectoral collaborations in improving health equity for the populations that they serve. However, a common understanding of health equity remains to be widely established, which is essential for conducting effective multisectoral work to advance health equity.