Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Achieving successful community engagement: a rapid realist review

Authors: E. De Weger, N. Van Vooren, K. G. Luijkx, C. A. Baan, H. W. Drewes

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Community engagement is increasingly seen as crucial to achieving high quality, efficient and collaborative care. However, organisations are still searching for the best and most effective ways to engage citizens in the shaping of health and care services. This review highlights the barriers and enablers for engaging communities in the planning, designing, governing, and/or delivering of health and care services on the macro or meso level. It provides policymakers and professionals with evidence-based guiding principles to implement their own effective community engagement (CE) strategies.

Methods

A Rapid Realist Review was conducted to investigate how interventions interact with contexts and mechanisms to influence the effectiveness of CE. A local reference panel, consisting of health and care professionals and experts, assisted in the development of the research questions and search strategy. The panel’s input helped to refine the review’s findings. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted.

Results

Eight action-oriented guiding principles were identified:
  • Ensure staff provide supportive and facilitative leadership to citizens based on transparency;
  • foster a safe and trusting environment enabling citizens to provide input;
  • ensure citizens’ early involvement;
  • share decision-making and governance control with citizens;
  • acknowledge and address citizens’ experiences of power imbalances between citizens and professionals;
  • invest in citizens who feel they lack the skills and confidence to engage;
  • create quick and tangible wins;
  • take into account both citizens’ and organisations’ motivations.

Conclusions

An especially important thread throughout the CE literature is the influence of power imbalances and organisations’ willingness, or not, to address such imbalances. The literature suggests that ‘meaningful participation’ of citizens can only be achieved if organisational processes are adapted to ensure that they are inclusive, accessible and supportive of citizens.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
Shortell SM, Wu FM, Lewis VA, et al. A taxonomy of accountable care organizations for policy and practice. Health Serv Res. 2014;49(6):1883–99.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
6.
Iroz-Elardo N. Health impact assessment as community participation. Community Development Journal. 2015;50(2):280–95.CrossRef
7.
O’Neill K, Williams KJ, Reznik V. Engaging Latino residents to build a healthier community in mid-City san Diego. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(3):S36–41.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Milton B, Attree P, French B, et al. The impact of community engagement on health and social outcomes: a systematic review. Community Development Journal. 2011;47(3):316–34.CrossRef
9.
Carlisle S. Tackling health inequalities and social exclusion through partnership and community engagement? A reality check for policy and practice aspirations from a social inclusion Partnership in Scotland. Critical Public Health. 2008;20(1):117–27.CrossRef
10.
11.
Hamamoto MH, Deraug DD, Yoshimura BS. Building the base: two active living projects that inspired community participation. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(6S2):S345–51.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Cyril S, Smith BJ, Possamai-Inesedy A. Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review. Glob Health Action. 2015;8(1):29842.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Dalton J, Chambers D, Harden M. Service user engagement and health service reconfiguration: a rapid evidence synthesis. Health Serv Delivery Res. 2015;21(3):195–205.CrossRef
15.
16.
De Freitas C, Martin G. Inclusive public participation in health: policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare. Soc Sci Med. 2015;135:31–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Lewis L. User involvement in mental health services: a case of power over discourse. Sociol Res Online. 2014;19:1.CrossRef
18.
Renedo A, Marston C. Healthcare professionals’ representations of ‘patient and public involvement’ and creation of ‘public participant’ identities: implications for the development of inclusive and bottom-up community participation initiatives. J Community Applied Psychol. 2011;21(3):268–80.CrossRef
19.
Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.
20.
21.
22.
Stolee P, Elliott J, McNeil H. Choosing healthcare options by involving Canada’s elderly: a protocol for the CHOICE realist synthesis project on engaging older persons in healthcare decision making. BMJ Open. 2015;5:11.CrossRef
23.
Willis CD, Saul J, Bevan H, et al. Sustaining organizational culture change in health systems. J Health Organ Manag. 2014;30(1):2–30.CrossRef
24.
O’Mara-Eves A, Brunton G, McDaid D. Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis. Public Health Res. 2013;1:4.
25.
26.
Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30(2):251–90.CrossRef
27.
Lacouture A, Brenton E, Guichard A, et al. The concept of mechanisms from a realist approach: a scoping review to facilitate its operationalization in public health program evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10:153.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Jagosh J, Pluye P, Macaulay C, et al. Assessing the outcomes of participatory research: protocol for identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesizing the literature for realist review. Implement Sci. 2011;6:24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
MacFarlane F, Greenhalgh T, Hughes HC, et al. A new workforce in the making? A case study of strategic human resource management in a whole-system change effort in healthcare. J Health Organ Manag. 2011;25(1):55–72.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Chan YE, Benecki LA. Evaluating the success of a Hospital’s community engagement process. Health Care Management Forum. 2013;26(1):20–5.CrossRef
31.
Clark N, Lachance L, Doctor LJ, et al. Policy and system change and community coalitions: outcomes from allies against asthma. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(5):904–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Durey A, McEnvoy S, Swift-Otero V. Improving healthcare for Aboriginal Australians through effective engagement between community and health services. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:224.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Kelaher M, Sabanovic H, La Brooy C, et al. Does more equitable governance lead to more equitable health care? A case study based on the implementation of health reform in aboriginal health Australia. Soc Sci Med. 2014;123:278–86.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Luluquisen M, Pettis L. Community engagement for policy and systems change. Community Development. 2014;45(3):252–62.CrossRef
35.
Montesanti SR, Abelson J, Lavis JN, et al. The value of frameworks as knowledge translation mechanisms to guide community participation practice in Ontario CHCs. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:223–31.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Pennel CL, McLeroy KR, Burdine JN, et al. A mixed-methods approach to understanding community participation in community health needs assessments. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015;23(2):112.
37.
Tenbensel T, Cummings J, Ashton T, et al. Where there’s a will, is there a way? Is New Zealand’s publicly funded health sector able to steer towards population health? Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(7):1143–52.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Van Eijk C, Steen T. Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. Int Rev Adm Sci. 2016;82(1):28–46.CrossRef
39.
Veronesi G, Keasey K. Patient and public participation in the English NHS: an assessment of experimental implementation processes. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17:4.CrossRef
40.
Yoo S, Butler J, Elias TI. The 6-step model for community empowerment: revisited in public housing communities for low-income senior citizens. Health Promot Pract. 2008;10(2):262–75.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Kegler MC, Ellenberg PJ, Twiss JM. Evaluation findings on community participation in the California healthy cities and communities program. Health Promot Int. 2009;24(4):300–10.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Schoch-Spana M, Kirk ST, Morhard R. Local health department capacity for community engagement and its implications for disaster resilience. Biosecur Bioterror. 2013;1(2):118–29.CrossRef
43.
Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:725.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Holroyd-Leduc J, Resin J, Ashley L, et al. Giving voice to older adults living with frailty and their family caregivers: engagement of older adults living with frailty in research, health care decision making, and in health policy. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:223.CrossRef
45.
Nieder TO, Strauss BM. Transgender health care in Germany: participatory approaches and the development of a guideline. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015;27(5):416–26.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Rifkin SB. Examining the links between community participation and health outcomes: a review of the literature. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29(2):98–106.CrossRef
47.
Marchal B, van Belle S, Hoerée T, et al. Is realist evaluation keeping its promise? A review of the published empirical studies in the field of health systems research. Evaluation. 2012;18(2):192–212.CrossRef
48.
Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salberg J, et al. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership, synergy, trust building and ripple effects. BMC Public Health. 2012;15:725.CrossRef
49.
MacDonald M, Pauly B, Wong G, et al. Supporting successful implementation of public health interventions: protocol for a realist synthesis. Syst Rev. 2016;5:54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Kane SS, Gerretsen B, Scherpbier R, et al. A realist synthesis of randomised controlled trials involving use of community health workers for delivering child health interventions in low and middle income countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:286.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Achieving successful community engagement: a rapid realist review
Authors
E. De Weger
N. Van Vooren
K. G. Luijkx
C. A. Baan
H. W. Drewes
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3090-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Health Services Research 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Perceived barriers and facilitators in providing palliative care for people with severe dementia: the healthcare professionals’ experiences

Research article

Barriers and enablers to sexual health service use among university students: a qualitative descriptive study using the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model

Research article

Pharmacists in general practice: a qualitative interview case study of stakeholders’ experiences in a West London GP federation

Research article

A comparative study on the frequency of simulation-based training and assessment of non-technical skills in the Norwegian ground ambulance services and helicopter emergency medical services

Research article

Disparities in pulmonary fibrosis care in the United States: an analysis from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

Research article

Effects of mixed provider payment systems and aligned cost sharing practices on expenditure growth management, efficiency, and equity: a structured review of the literature