Promotoras as Mental Health Practitioners in Primary Care: A Multi-Method Study of an Intervention to Address Contextual Sources of Depression
Open accessAbstract
We assessed the role of promotoras--briefly trained community health workers--in depression care at community health centers. The intervention focused on four contextual sources of depression in underserved, low-income communities: underemployment, inadequate housing, food insecurity, and violence. A multi-method design included quantitative and ethnographic techniques to study predictors of depression and the intervention's impact. After a structured training program, primary care practitioners (PCPs) and promotoras collaboratively followed a clinical algorithm in which PCPs prescribed medications and/or arranged consultations by mental health professionals and promotoras addressed the contextual sources of depression. Based on an intake interview with 464 randomly recruited patients, 120 patients with depression were randomized to enhanced care plus the promotora contextual intervention, or to enhanced care alone. All four contextual problems emerged as strong predictors of depression (chi square, p < .05); logistic regression revealed housing and food insecurity as the most important predictors (odds ratios both 2.40, p < .05). Unexpected challenges arose in the intervention's implementation, involving infrastructure at the health centers, boundaries of the promotoras' roles, and "turf" issues with medical assistants. In the quantitative assessment, the intervention did not lead to statistically significant improvements in depression (odds ratio 4.33, confidence interval overlapping 1). Ethnographic research demonstrated a predominantly positive response to the intervention among stakeholders, including patients, promotoras, PCPs, non-professional staff workers, administrators, and community advisory board members. Due to continuing unmet mental health needs, we favor further assessment of innovative roles for community health workers.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
One study found potential low-grade turf wars between clinic medical assistants and CHWs.
“One study highlighted potential low-grade “turf wars” that surfaced between medical assistants at the clinic and CHWs.30”
From Task-sharing approaches to improve mental health care in rural and other low-resource settings: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 170 · Cited by 98
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [80]Brown GW Honig A van Praag HM A psychosocial perspective and the aetiology of depression Depression: Neurobiological, psychopathological & therapeutic advances 1997 New York Wiley
- [150]Baca-Baldomero E Sáiz-Ruiz J Agüera-Ortiz LF Prevalencia de los trastornos psiquiátricos en atención primaria usando el cuestionario PRIME-MD Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría 1999 27 6 375 383 10341458
- Authors
- Waitzkin, H., Getrich, C., Heying, S., Rodríguez, L., Parmar, A., Willging, C., Yager, J., & Santos, R.
- Affiliations
- University of New Mexico (US)
- University of Colorado Denver (US)
- Corresponding author
- Waitzkin, Howard
- Venue
- Journal of Community Health
- Published
- 2010-09-30
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 316-331
- ISSN
- 0094-5145 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3610
- PMC
- PMC3051073
- OpenAlex
- W2062024496
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 170
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 4.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Community Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center for Health Policy
- National Institute of Mental Health (R25MH060288)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Keywords
- promotoras, community health workers, depression, contextual risk factors, housing insecurity, food insecurity, underemployment, violence, primary care, community health centers, low-income communities, mental health interventions, implementation barriers, stakeholder perspectives, unmet mental health needs
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Community Health Workers, Community Health Centers, Community Mental Health Services, Depression, Employment, Female, Food Supply, Housing, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Male, Medically Underserved Area, Middle Aged, New Mexico, Poverty, Primary Health Care, Violence, Treatment Outcome, Professional Role
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review