| Course | HCD 400 Evidence Odyssey Decoding Peer-Reviewed Research for Future Practice |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Critical review essay |
| Length | About 533 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | BS in Health Care Administration and Policy |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCD 400 Module 7
Promising but Uneven: A Critical Review of the Evidence on Community Health Workers and Health Care Use
Student Name
BS in Health Care Administration and Policy, Arizona State University
HCD 400: Evidence Odyssey: Decoding Peer-Reviewed Research for Future Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Promising but Uneven: A Critical Review of the Evidence on Community Health Workers and Health Care Use
Summary of the Work Reviewed
Jack et al. (2017) set out to answer whether community health worker programs in the United States reduce the use of health care services such as emergency visits and hospital stays. The authors searched several databases, screened thousands of records and included 34 studies that met their criteria, about half of them randomized trials. They concluded that community health worker programs have variable effects on utilization, with some programs reducing emergency visits and hospitalizations, and that randomized trials tended to show less positive results than other designs.
Strengths
The review asks a question that matters to health systems and payers, who must decide whether to fund these programs. Its search was broad, covering several databases, and its inclusion criteria were explicit, which allows readers to judge what was left out. It separated results by study design, an important choice that revealed the pattern of weaker results in randomized trials; many reviews would have pooled all designs and reported a more favorable picture. Its summary tables make individual programs easy to compare.
Weaknesses
The programs it reviews differ widely in who the workers were, what they did, how long they worked with patients and which patients they served. This heterogeneity makes it hard to say which features of a program produce benefits. The review did not pool results into a single estimate, which is defensible given the differences, but leaves readers without a sense of the typical effect size. Cost outcomes varied and were measured in different ways, so the review cannot tell an administrator whether reduced utilization outweighs program costs. Like any review, it depends on what was published.
Avenues for Future Exploration
First, studies should test which program components matter, such as caseload, training and the length of support, so that systems can design programs that work. Second, trials should report standardized cost and return-on-investment data. Third, research should examine programs outside academic medical centers, where most new programs will be built; the trial that has anchored my course work, run by a single academic center in one city, showed benefits in hospital use but not in its primary outcome (Kangovi et al., 2018). Fourth, longer follow-up is needed to see whether reductions in utilization last after support ends.
Implications for Practice
For a hospital administrator, the review supports investing in community health workers for high-need patients, but as an evaluated program with clear goals rather than an assumed solution. Another review, limited to randomized trials among vulnerable populations, found that most such programs targeted cancer prevention and cardiovascular risk reduction (Kim et al., 2016), a reminder of how little of the trial evidence measures hospital use directly.
Reflection on the Course
Moving through four essays on one topic showed me how much a single headline finding can hide. Searching, appraising methods, examining assumptions and reviewing the evidence as a whole led me from "community health workers reduce hospital use" to a more precise and more useful statement: some programs do, for some patients, and good evaluation is how a system finds out whether its program is one of them.
References
Jack, H. E., Arabadjis, S. D., Sun, L., Sullivan, E. E., & Phillips, R. S. (2017). Impact of community health workers on use of healthcare services in the United States: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 32(3), 325-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3922-9
Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Norton, L., Harte, R., Zhao, X., Carter, T., Grande, D., & Long, J. A. (2018). Effect of community health worker support on clinical outcomes of low-income patients across primary care facilities: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(12), 1635-1643. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4630
Kim, K., Choi, J. S., Choi, E., Nieman, C. L., Joo, J. H., Lin, F. R., Gitlin, L. N., & Han, H. R. (2016). Effects of community-based health worker interventions to improve chronic disease management and care among vulnerable populations: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 106(4), e3-e28. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302987
Reading the HCD 400 Module 7 assignment instructions
The Module 7 Assignment closes HCD 400 and is worth 60 points, tied with Module 5 as the course's largest essay. It falls in the module on the future of evidence-based practice and research. The syllabus describes it as building the skill of constructing articulate and insightful analytical narratives through the composition of critical reviews, spotlighting strengths, weaknesses and avenues for future exploration within the health field. A critical review is not a summary: it judges the work and explains why. Reviewing a source you have used across the course lets you draw on everything the earlier essays taught you about searching, rigor and bias.
Inside the HCD 400 Module 7 example
Following the shape of a published critical review, the sample opens with a brief, neutral summary of the review's question, methods and conclusions. Separate sections then set out its strengths and weaknesses, each explained in terms of what it means for a reader making decisions. Four numbered avenues for future research follow, each tied to a gap the review exposed. A short implications section states what an administrator should take from the evidence, and a closing reflection connects the four course essays. Three sources support the review. The summary stays under a fifth of the paper, leaving most of the space for judgment. Each future research direction names what should be measured, which is what separates a useful agenda from a vague call for more studies.
HCD 400 Module 7 rubric: what earns full marks
Sixty points ride on the critical review under its Canvas rubric. Critical reviews are generally credited for an accurate, concise summary, balanced and specific strengths and weaknesses supported by the work itself, analysis that explains why each point matters, concrete and well-reasoned directions for future research, clear implications and polished, well-organized writing with APA citations. Reviews lose credit when they are mostly summary, when strengths and weaknesses are generic, when future research is described only as "more studies are needed" and when quotation exceeds the five percent limit. A closing reflection that connects the review to earlier modules is usually welcome, since the course is designed as a sequence and the final essay is its capstone.
HCD 400 Module 7 help from the desk
The difference between a strong and weak critical review is the word "because." Every strength and weakness should say why it matters. Keep the summary short so the analysis has room. Make future research directions specific enough that someone could design a study from them. Link the review to practice, since the course is about using evidence. Paraphrase rather than quote. If you want a second reader on whether your review analyzes rather than summarizes, the desk can look at a draft. Before submitting, reread each paragraph and ask whether a reader learns your opinion of the work or only its content; any paragraph that offers only content needs a judgment added.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HCD 400 and BS in Health Care Administration and Policy sample papers
- HCD 400 Module 2: Module 2 Assignment: Navigating Scholarly Databases
- HCD 400 Module 3: Module 3 Assignment: Evaluating Methodological Rigor and Credibility
- HCD 400 Module 5: Module 5 Assignment: Implicit Biases, Assumptions and Limitations
- HCD 420 Module 1: Writing Workshop 1: Policies for Improving Health Outcomes
- HCD 303 Module 1: Team Charter for the Comparative Health System Project
- HCD 332 Module 1: Health Policy Analysis Problem Statement
- HCD 330 Module 3: Research PowerPoint Presentation: Medicaid Expansion
HCD 400 Module 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HCD 400 Module 7 sample paper?
A full HCD 400 Module 7 sample is on this page: a critical review of the evidence on community health workers and health care use, with strengths, weaknesses and future research.
What is a critical review?
An analytical evaluation of a piece of research that summarizes it briefly, judges its strengths and weaknesses with reasons and identifies directions for future work.
What does the HCD 400 Module 7 assignment ask?
A critical review written as an analytical narrative that spotlights strengths, weaknesses and avenues for future exploration in health research.
Do community health workers reduce hospital use?
Evidence is mixed: some programs reduce emergency visits and hospital stays, especially for high-need patients, but randomized trials show less consistent benefits.
How much is the HCD 400 Module 7 assignment worth?
It is worth 60 points, the same as the Module 5 essay.