↓ Skip to main content

Synergies, strengths and challenges: findings on community capability from a systematic health systems research literature review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Synergies, strengths and challenges: findings on community capability from a systematic health systems research literature review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1860-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asha S. George, Kerry Scott, Vrinda Mehra, Veena Sriram

Abstract

Community capability is the combined influence of a community's social systems and collective resources that can address community problems and broaden community opportunities. We frame it as consisting of three domains that together support community empowerment: what communities have; how communities act; and for whom communities act. We sought to further understand these domains through a secondary analysis of a previous systematic review on community participation in health systems interventions in low and middle income countries (LMICs). We searched for journal articles published between 2000 and 2012 related to the concepts of "community", "capability/participation", "health systems research" and "LMIC." We identified 64 with rich accounts of community participation involving service delivery and governance in health systems research for thematic analysis following the three domains framing community capability. When considering what communities have, articles reported external linkages as the most frequently gained resource, especially when partnerships resulted in more community power over the intervention. In contrast, financial assets were the least mentioned, despite their importance for sustainability. With how communities act, articles discussed challenges of ensuring inclusive participation and detailed strategies to improve inclusiveness. Very little was reported about strengthening community cohesiveness and collective efficacy despite their importance in community initiatives. When reviewing for whom communities act, the importance of strong local leadership was mentioned frequently, while conflict resolution strategies and skills were rarely discussed. Synergies were found across these elements of community capability, with tangible success in one area leading to positive changes in another. Access to information and opportunities to develop skills were crucial to community participation, critical thinking, problem solving and ownership. Although there are many quantitative scales measuring community capability, health systems research engaged with community participation has rarely made use of these tools or the concepts informing them. Overall, the amount of information related to elements of community capability reported by these articles was low and often of poor quality. Strengthening community capability is critical to ensuring that community participation leads to genuine empowerment. Our simpler framework to define community capability may help researchers better recognize, support and assess it.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 194 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 15%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Other 38 19%
Unknown 65 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 40 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 68 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2019.
All research outputs
#13,220,513
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,443
of 7,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,817
of 307,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#66
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.