ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Evaluation of a comprehensive health check offered to frontline health workers in Zimbabwe.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of data-collection method on reporting of common mental disorder symptoms and intimate partner violence in Zimbabwe: a cluster-randomized trial.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Trial
- Article
- Barriers to and facilitators of linkage to care following hypertension and diabetes screening among health workers in Zimbabwe: A mixed method study.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Integrated health checks as a person-centred approach to systematic screening of household tuberculosis contacts: A realist-informed mixed-methods study.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Health workers are essential for a functioning healthcare system, and their own health is often not addressed. During the COVID-19 pandemic health workers were at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection whilst coping with increased healthcare demand. Here we report the development, implementation, and uptake of an integrated health check combining SARS-CoV-2 testing with screening for other communicable and non-communicable diseases for health workers in Zimbabwe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health checks were offered to health workers in public and private health facilities from July 2020 to June 2022. Data on the number of health workers accessing the service and yield of screening was collected. Workshops and in-depth interviews were conducted to explore the perceptions and experiences of clients and service providers. 6598 health workers across 48 health facilities accessed the service. Among those reached, 5215 (79%) were women, the median age was 37 (IQR: 29-44) years and the largest proportion were nurses (n = 2092, 32%). 149 (2.3%) healthcare workers tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Uptake of screening services was almost 100% for all screened conditions except HIV. The most common conditions detected through screening were elevated blood pressure (n = 1249; 19%), elevated HbA1c (n = 428; 7.7%) and common mental disorder (n = 645; 9.8%). Process evaluation showed high acceptability of the service. Key enablers for health workers accessing the service included free and comprehensive service provision, and availability of reliable point-of-care screening methods. Implementation of a comprehensive health check for health workers was feasible, acceptable, and effective, even during a pandemic. Conventional occupational health programmes focus on infectious diseases. In a society where even health workers cannot afford health care, free comprehensive occupational health services may address unmet needs in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for chronic non-communicable conditions.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.