The impact of home safety promotion on different social strata in a WHO safe community

Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis

Background

Community engagement has been advanced as a promising way of improving health and reducing health inequalities; however, the approach is not yet supported by a strong evidence base.

Objectives

To undertake a multimethod systematic review which builds on the evidence that underpins the current UK guidance on community engagement; to identify theoretical models underpinning community engagement; to explore mechanisms and contexts through which communities are engaged; to identify community engagement approaches that are effective in reducing health inequalities, under what circumstances and for whom; and to determine the processes and costs associated with their implementation.

Data sources

Databases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), The Campbell Library, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and EPPI-Centre’s Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI) and Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER) were searched from 1990 to August 2011 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Trials evaluating community engagement interventions reporting health outcomes were included.

Review methods

Study eligibility criteria: published after 1990; outcome, economic, or process evaluation; intervention relevant to community engagement; written in English; measured and reported health or community outcomes, or presents cost, resource, or implementation data characterises study populations or reports differential impacts in terms of social determinants of health; conducted in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country. Study appraisal: risk of bias for outcome evaluations; assessment of validity and relevance for process evaluations; comparison against an economic evaluation checklist for economic evaluations. Synthesis methods: four synthesis approaches were adopted for the different evidence types: theoretical, quantitative, process, and economic evidence.

Results

The theoretical synthesis identified key models of community engagement that are underpinned by different theories of changes. Results from 131 studies included in a meta-analysis indicate that there is solid evidence that community engagement interventions have a positive impact on health behaviours, health consequences, self-efficacy and perceived social support outcomes, across various conditions. There is insufficient evidence – particularly for long-term outcomes and indirect beneficiaries – to determine whether one particular model of community engagement is likely to be more effective than any other. There are also insufficient data to test the effects on health inequalities, although there is some evidence to suggest that interventions that improve social inequalities (as measured by social support) also improve health behaviours. There is weak evidence from the effectiveness and process evaluations that certain implementation factors may affect intervention success. From the economic analysis, there is weak but inconsistent evidence that community engagement interventions are cost-effective. By combining findings across the syntheses, we produced a new conceptual framework.

Limitations

Differences in the populations, intervention approaches and health outcomes made it difficult to pinpoint specific strategies for intervention effectiveness. The syntheses of process and economic evidence were limited by the small (generally not rigorous) evidence base.

Conclusions

Community engagement interventions are effective across a wide range of contexts and using a variety of mechanisms. Public health initiatives should incorporate community engagement into intervention design. Evaluations should place greater emphasis on long-term outcomes, outcomes for indirect beneficiaries, process evaluation, and reporting costs and resources data. The theories of change identified and the newly developed conceptual framework are useful tools for researchers and practitioners. We identified trends in the evidence that could provide useful directions for future intervention design and evaluation.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

The impact of child safety promotion on different social strata in a WHO Safe Community

Background:

The objective of the current study was to evaluate outcomes of a program to prevent severe and less severe unintentional child injuries among the different social strata under WHO Safe Community program. Specifically, the aim was to study effectiveness of Safe Community program for reducing child injury.

Methods:

A quasi-experimental design was used, with pre- and post-implementation registrations covering the children (0 -15 years) in the program implementation area (population 41,000) and in a neighboring control municipality (population 26,000) in Östergötland County, Sweden.

Results:

Boys from not vocationally active households displayed the highest pre-intervention injury rate in both the control and intervention areas. Also in households in which the vocationally significant member was employed, boys showed higher injury rates than girls. Households in which the vocationally significant member was self-employed, girls exhibited higher injury rates than boys in the intervention area. After 6 years of program activity, the injury rates for boys and girls in employed category and injury rates for girls in self-employed category displayed a decreasing trend in the intervention area. However, in the control area injury rate decreased only for boys of employed families.

Conclusions:

The study indicated that almost no changes in injury rates in the control area suggested that the reduction of child injuries in the intervention area between 1983 and 1989 was likely to be attributable to the safety promotion program. Therefore, the current study indicates that Safe Community program seems to be successful for reducing child injuries.

The 'WHO Safe Communities' model for the prevention of injury in whole populations

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) 'safe communities' approach to injury prevention has been embraced around the world as a model for co-ordinating community efforts to enhance safety and reduce injury. Approximately 150 communities throughout the world have formal 'Safe Communities' designation. It is of public health interest to determine to what degree the model is successful, and whether it reduces injury rates. This Cochrane Review is an update of a previous published version.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of the WHO Safe Communities model to prevent injury in whole populations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Our search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and ZETOC. We handsearched selected journals and contacted key people from each WHO Safe Community. The last search was December 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion. Included studies were those conducted within a WHO Safe Community that reported changes in population injury rates within the community compared to a control community.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included evaluations for 21 communities from five countries in two geographical regions in the world: Austria, Sweden and Norway, and Australia and New Zealand. Although positive results were reported for some communities, there was no consistent relationship between being a WHO designated Safe Community and subsequent changes in observed injury rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is marked inconsistency in the results of the studies included in this systematic review. While the frequency of injury in some study communities did reduce following their designation as a WHO Safe Community, there remains insufficient evidence from which to draw definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the model.The lack of consistency in results may be due to the heterogeneity of the approaches to implementing the model, varying efficacy of activities and strategies, varying intensity of implementation and methodological limitations in evaluations. While all communities included in the review fulfilled the WHO Safe Community criteria, these criteria were too general to prescribe a standardised programme of activity or evaluation methodology.Adequate documentation describing how various Safe Communities implemented the model was limited, making it unclear which factors affected success. Where a reduction in injury rates was not reported, lack of information makes it difficult to distinguish whether this was due to problems with the model or with the way in which it was implemented.