Establishing the economics of engaging communities in health promotion: what is desirable, what is feasible?

Community Engagement in Vaccination Promotion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Community engagement plays a vital role in global immunization strategies, offering the potential to overcome vaccination hesitancy and enhance vaccination confidence. Although there is significant backing for community engagement in health promotion, the evidence supporting its effectiveness in vaccination promotion is fragmented and of uncertain quality.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to systematically examine the effectiveness of different contents and extent of community engagement for promoting vaccination rates.

METHODS

This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A comprehensive and exhaustive literature search was performed in 4 English databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and 2 Chinese databases (CNKI and Wan Fang) to identify all possible articles. Original research articles applying an experimental study design that investigated the effectiveness of community engagement in vaccination promotion were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently performed the literature search, study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, with the arbitration of a third reviewer where necessary.

RESULTS

A total of 20 articles out of 11,404 records from 2006 to 2021 were retrieved. The studies used various designs: 12 applied single-group pre-post study designs, 5 were cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 3 were non-RCTs. These studies targeted multiple vaccines, with 8 focusing on children's immunization, 8 on human papillomavirus vaccine, 3 on hepatitis B virus vaccine, and 1 on COVID-19 vaccine. The meta-analysis revealed significant increases in vaccination rates both in pre-post comparison (rate difference [RD] 0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.47, I2=99.9%, P<.001) and between-group comparison (RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.29, I2=98.4%, P<.001). The meta-analysis revealed that participant recruitment had the largest effect size (RD 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.67, I2=99.9%, P<.001), followed by intervention development (RD 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.50, I2=100.0%, P<.001), intervention implementation (RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.22-0.47, I2=99.8%, P<.001), and data collection (RD 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.50, I2=99.8%, P<.001). The meta-analysis indicated that high community engagement extent yielded the largest effect size (RD 0.49, 95% CI 0.17-0.82, I2=100.0%, P<.001), followed by moderate community engagement extent (RD 0.45, 95% CI 0.33-0.58, I2=99.6%, P<.001) and low community engagement extent (RD 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.25, I2=99.2%, P<.001). The meta-analysis revealed that "health service support" demonstrated the largest effect sizes (RD 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.65, I2=99.9%, P<.001), followed by "health education and discussion" (RD 0.39, 95% CI 0.20-0.58, I2=99.7%, P<.001), "follow-up and reminder" (RD 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.42, I2=99.3%, P<.001), and "social marketing campaigns and community mobilization" (RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06-0.41, I2=99.9%, P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis supported the effectiveness of community engagement in vaccination promotion with variations in terms of engagement contents and extent. Community engagement required a "fit-for-purpose" approach rather than a "one-size-fits-all" approach to maximize the effectiveness of vaccine promotion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022339081; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=339081.

A guiding framework for needs assessment evaluations to embed digital platforms in partnership with Indigenous communities

INTRODUCTION

In community-based research projects, needs assessments are one of the first steps to identify community priorities. Access-related issues often pose significant barriers to participation in research and evaluation for rural and remote communities, particularly Indigenous communities, which also have a complex relationship with academia due to a history of exploitation. To bridge this gap, work with Indigenous communities requires consistent and meaningful engagement. The prominence of digital devices (i.e., smartphones) offers an unparalleled opportunity for ethical and equitable engagement between researchers and communities across jurisdictions, particularly in remote communities.

METHODS

This paper presents a framework to guide needs assessments which embed digital platforms in partnership with Indigenous communities. Guided by this framework, a qualitative needs assessment was conducted with a subarctic Métis community in Saskatchewan, Canada. This project is governed by an Advisory Council comprised of Knowledge Keepers, Elders, and youth in the community. An environmental scan of relevant programs, three key informant interviews, and two focus groups (n = 4 in each) were conducted to systematically identify community priorities.

RESULTS

Through discussions with the community, four priorities were identified: (1) the Coronavirus pandemic, (2) climate change impacts on the environment, (3) mental health and wellbeing, and (4) food security and sovereignty. Given the timing of the needs assessment, the community identified the Coronavirus pandemic as a key priority requiring digital initiatives.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for community-based needs assessments to conceptualize and implement digital infrastructure are put forward, with an emphasis on self-governance and data sovereignty.

Complexity and Community Context: Learning from the Evaluation Design of a National Community Empowerment Programme

Community empowerment interventions, which aim to build greater individual and community control over health, are shaped by the community systems in which they are implemented. Drawing on complex systems thinking in public health research, this paper discusses the evaluation approach used for a UK community empowerment programme focused on disadvantaged neighbourhoods. It explores design choices and the tension between the overall enquiry questions, which were based on a programme theory of change, and the varied dynamic socio-cultural contexts in intervention communities. The paper concludes that the complexity of community systems needs to be accounted for through in-depth case studies that incorporate community perspectives.

Mass media to communicate public health messages in six health topic areas: a systematic review and other reviews of the evidence

Background

Mass media campaigns can be used to communicate public health messages at the population level. Although previous research has shown that they can influence health behaviours in some contexts, there have been few attempts to synthesise evidence across multiple health behaviours.

Objectives

To (1) review evidence on the effective use of mass media in six health topic areas (alcohol, diet, illicit drugs, physical activity, sexual and reproductive health and tobacco), (2) examine whether or not effectiveness varies with different target populations, (3) identify characteristics of mass media campaigns associated with effectiveness and (4) identify key research gaps.

Design

The study comprised (1) a systematic review of reviews, (2) a review of primary studies examining alcohol mass media campaigns, (3) a review of cost-effectiveness evidence and (4) a review of recent primary studies of mass media campaigns conducted in the UK. A logic model was developed to inform the reviews. Public engagement activities were conducted with policy, practitioner and academic stakeholders and with young people.

Results

The amount and strength of evidence varies across the six topics, and there was little evidence regarding diet campaigns. There was moderate evidence that mass media campaigns can reduce sedentary behaviour and influence sexual health-related behaviours and treatment-seeking behaviours (e.g. use of smoking quitlines and sexual health services). The impact on tobacco use and physical activity was mixed, there was limited evidence of impact on alcohol use and there was no impact on illicit drug behaviours. Mass media campaigns were found to increase knowledge and awareness across several topics, and to influence intentions regarding physical activity and smoking. Tobacco and illicit drug campaigns appeared to be more effective for young people and children but there was no or inconsistent evidence regarding effectiveness by sex, ethnicity or socioeconomic status. There was moderate evidence that tobacco mass media campaigns are cost-effective, but there was weak or limited evidence in other topic areas. Although there was limited evidence on characteristics associated with effectiveness, longer or greater intensity campaigns were found to be more effective, and messages were important, with positive and negative messages and social norms messages affecting smoking behaviour. The evidence suggested that targeting messages to target audiences can be effective. There was little evidence regarding the role that theory or media channels may play in campaign effectiveness, and also limited evidence on new media.

Limitations

Statistical synthesis was not possible owing to considerable heterogeneity across reviews and studies. The focus on review-level evidence limited our ability to examine intervention characteristics in detail.

Conclusions

Overall, the evidence is mixed but suggests that (1) campaigns can reduce sedentary behaviour, improve sexual health and contribute to smoking cessation, (2) tobacco control campaigns can be cost-effective, (3) longer and more intensive campaigns are likely to be more effective and (4) message design and targeting campaigns to particular population groups can be effective.

Future work

Future work could fill evidence gaps regarding diet mass media campaigns and new-media campaigns, examine cost-effectiveness in areas other than tobacco and explore the specific contribution of mass media campaigns to multicomponent interventions and how local, regional and national campaigns can work together.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015029205 and PROSPERO CRD42017054999.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

The impact on health inequalities of approaches to community engagement in the New Deal for Communities regeneration initiative: a mixed-methods evaluation

Background

This study was set in 39 neighbourhoods involved in a government-funded regeneration programme called New Deal for Communities (NDC) that began in 1998. We tested whether or not different approaches to engage residents in decision-making in these areas had different social and health impacts.

Methods

First, NDC approaches to community engagement (CE) were grouped into four types. We then assessed the impact of these types and whether or not their cost-effectiveness could be calculated. We used existing data from surveys and from NHS and government sources. New data were collected from interviews with residents of NDC areas and former staff. We have also made these data publicly available so that other researchers can assess impacts over a longer time period.

Results

The four CE types included an empowering resident-led approach (type A), in which residents had a lot of control over decisions, and an instrumental professional-led approach (type D), in which CE was more often used to promote the priorities of public sector organisations. Type B was initially empowering but over time became instrumental and type C balanced empowerment and instrumental approaches from the beginning. There were few statistically significant differences in health and social impacts by CE type. However, when there were statistically significant differences, the results suggest that type A, and to a lesser extent, types B and C approaches may have had better outcomes than the type D approach in relation to levels of participation and trust between residents, control or influence over decisions, social cohesion and mental health. NDC areas with a type D approach were the only ones where residents’ ‘sense of control’ deteriorated over time. Residents of these areas were less likely to feel that the NDC had improved their area and to experience improvements in mental health. However, some aspects of cohesion and trust improved in type D areas. The findings of our economic analyses are mixed. It was difficult to cost engagement activities, measures of effectiveness were not robust and relating costs that could be calculated to specific measures of effectiveness was difficult. There were almost as many negative as positive scores, making the calculation of cost-effectiveness an arbitrary exercise.

Conclusions

Our results are consistent with a theory that the greater the levels of control that residents have over decisions affecting their lives the more likely there are to be positive impacts. It is plausible that an empowerment approach to CE would help build trust and community cohesion, and that having a greater influence over NDC decisions could lead to more people feeling that the NDC initiative had improved an area. Conversely, our results are also consistent with a theoretical position which suggests that instrumental approaches, which try to engage residents in agendas that are not theirs, will have relatively little positive impact and that community cohesion and well-being may be undermined. The study has not produced firm evidence on the effectiveness of different approaches to CE. However, the findings do suggest that programmes involving CE will be more likely to have positive impacts if the approaches to CE are experienced as more empowering and less instrumental (i.e. less focused on the agendas of external agencies). Future methodological research is needed to develop better measures of empowerment at the collective level and more robust approaches to empowerment on health and well-being at the population level.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

The organisation and delivery of health improvement in general practice and primary care: a scoping study

Background

This project examines the organisation and delivery of health improvement activities by and within general practice and the primary health-care team. The project was designed to examine who delivers these interventions, where they are located, what approaches are developed in practices, how individual practices and the primary health-care team organise such public health activities, and how these contribute to health improvement. Our focus was on health promotion and ill-health prevention activities.

Aims

The aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the current extent of knowledge about the health improvement activities in general practice and the wider primary health-care team. The key objectives were to provide an overview of the range and type of health improvement activities, identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further empirical research. Our specific research objectives were to map the range and type of health improvement activity undertaken by general practice staff and the primary health-care team based within general practice; to scope the literature on health improvement in general practice or undertaken by health-care staff based in general practice and identify gaps in the evidence base; to synthesise the literature and identify effective approaches to the delivery and organisation of health improvement interventions in a general practice setting; and to identify the priority areas for research as defined by those working in general practice.

Methods

We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature. We followed a staged selection process involving reviews of titles and abstracts. This resulted in the identification of 1140 papers for data extraction, with 658 of these papers selected for inclusion in the review, of which 347 were included in the evidence synthesis. We also undertook 45 individual and two group interviews with primary health-care staff.

Findings

Many of the research studies reviewed had some details about the type, process or location, or who provided the intervention. Generally, however, little attention is paid in the literature to examining the impact of the organisational context on the way services are delivered or how this affects the effectiveness of health improvement interventions in general practice. We found that the focus of attention is mainly on individual prevention approaches, with practices engaging in both primary and secondary prevention. The range of activities suggests that general practitioners do not take a population approach but focus on individual patients. However, it is clear that many general practitioners see health promotion as an integral part of practice, whether as individual approaches to primary or secondary health improvement or as a practice-based approach to improving the health of their patients. Our key conclusion is that there is currently insufficient good evidence to support many of the health improvement interventions undertaken in general practice and primary care more widely.

Future Research

Future research on health improvement in general practice and by the primary health-care team needs to move beyond clinical research to include delivery systems and be conducted in a primary care setting. More research needs to examine areas where there are chronic disease burdens – cancer, dementia and other disabilities of old age. Reviews should be commissioned that examine the whole prevention pathway for health problems that are managed within primary care drawing together research from general practice, pharmacy, community engagement, etc.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Evaluating community engagement as part of the public health system

Community participation and leadership is a central tenet of public health policy and practice. Community engagement approaches are used in a variety of ways to facilitate participation, ranging from the more utilitarian, involving lay delivery of established health programmes, to more empowerment-oriented approaches. Evaluation methods within public health, adapted from clinical medicine, are most suited to evaluating community engagement as an 'intervention', in the utilitarian sense, focusing on the health impacts of professionally determined programmes. However, as communities are empowered and professional control is relinquished, it is likely to be harder to capture the full effects of an intervention and so the current evidence base is skewed away from knowledge about the utility of these approaches. The aim of this paper is to stimulate debate on the evaluation of community engagement. Building on current understandings of evaluation within complex systems, the paper argues that what is needed is a paradigm shift from viewing the involvement of communities as an errant form of public health action, to seeing communities as an essential part of the public health system. This means moving from evaluation being exclusively focused on the linear causal chain between the intervention and the target population, to seeking to build understanding of whether and how the lay contribution has impacted on the social determinants of health, including the system through which the intervention is delivered. The paper proposes some alternative principles for the evaluation of community engagement that reflect a broader conceptualisation of the lay contribution to public health.

Rewarding altruism: addressing the issue of payments for volunteers in public health initiatives

Lay involvement in public health programmes occurs through formalised lay health worker (LHW) and other volunteer roles. Whether such participation should be supported, or indeed rewarded, by payment is a critical question. With reference to policy in England, UK, this paper argues how framing citizen involvement in health only as time freely given does not account for the complexities of practice, nor intrinsic motivations. The paper reports results on payment drawn from a study of approaches to support lay people in public health roles, conducted in England, 2007-9. The first phase of the study comprised a scoping review of 224 publications, three public hearings and a register of projects. Findings revealed the diversity of approaches to payment, but also the contested nature of the topic. The second phase investigated programme support matters in five case studies of public health projects, which were selected primarily to reflect role types. All five projects involved volunteers, with two utilising forms of payment to support engagement. Interviews were conducted with a sample of project staff, LHWs (paid and unpaid), external partners and service users. Drawing on both lay and professional perspectives, the paper explores how payment relates to social context as well as various motivations for giving, receiving or declining financial support. The findings show that personal costs are not always absorbed, and that there is a potential conflict between financial support, whether sessional payment or expenses, and welfare benefits. In identifying some of the advantages and disadvantages of payment, the paper highlights the complexity of an issue often addressed only superficially. It concludes that, in order to support citizen involvement, fairness and value should be considered alongside pragmatic matters of programme management; however policy conflicts need to be resolved to ensure that employment and welfare rights are maintained.

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.

A qualitative exploration of a health trainer programme in two UK primary care trusts

AIMS

World Health Organization data illustrate a worldwide re-emergence of interest in the scope of lay health workers for extending services to 'hard-to-reach' community groups. In the UK, the health trainer model of service delivery represents one such innovative way of working, first described in the White Paper Choosing Health: Making Healthier Choices Easier and more recently in the Kings Fund report. The scheme was introduced into selected primary care settings in England from 2005 and rolled out nationally from 2007. The aim of this study was to examine the perceived value of the health trainer scheme.

METHODS

This paper describes qualitative data from two studies undertaken in 2007-2009, comprising in-depth consultations with key primary care stakeholders, health trainers and their clients in two primary care trusts in northern and central England. Data was collected via 12 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and service users and from 8 focus groups with a total of 33 trainee and qualified health trainers.

RESULTS

The UK health trainer approach was regarded as effective in contributing to the support of a broad spectrum of health and welfare issues across widely diverse communities in the two primary care trusts evaluated. Study data also indicated a wide-ranging impact of the health trainer service, extending not only to the lay health workers themselves, but also to their families, friends and colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS

The health trainer service appears to be not only 'fit for purpose', but also to bring with it certain 'added value', which was not predicted by the two primary care service providers at the outset. A critical factor in this success appears to be the unique combination of time, the 'person next door' and a 'one-to-one' approach, which facilitated an innovative and highly productive connection between the health trainer and client. However, participants in this evaluation perceived that the current format and constituents of service performance data were significantly failing to credit the health trainer scheme with the full extent of this impact.