↓ Skip to main content

Narratives of community engagement: a systematic review-derived conceptual framework for public health interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
64 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
401 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
Narratives of community engagement: a systematic review-derived conceptual framework for public health interventions
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4958-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ginny Brunton, James Thomas, Alison O’Mara-Eves, Farah Jamal, Sandy Oliver, Josephine Kavanagh

Abstract

Government policy increasingly supports engaging communities to promote health. It is critical to consider whether such strategies are effective, for whom, and under what circumstances. However, 'community engagement' is defined in diverse ways and employed for different reasons. Considering the theory and context we developed a conceptual framework which informs understanding about what makes an effective (or ineffective) community engagement intervention. We conducted a systematic review of community engagement in public health interventions using: stakeholder involvement; searching, screening, appraisal and coding of research literature; and iterative thematic syntheses and meta-analysis. A conceptual framework of community engagement was refined, following interactions between the framework and each review stage. From 335 included reports, three products emerged: (1) two strong theoretical 'meta-narratives': one, concerning the theory and practice of empowerment/engagement as an independent objective; and a more utilitarian perspective optimally configuring health services to achieve defined outcomes. These informed (2) models that were operationalized in subsequent meta-analysis. Both refined (3) the final conceptual framework. This identified multiple dimensions by which community engagement interventions may differ. Diverse combinations of intervention purpose, theory and implementation were noted, including: ways of defining communities and health needs; initial motivations for community engagement; types of participation; conditions and actions necessary for engagement; and potential issues influencing impact. Some dimensions consistently co-occurred, leading to three overarching models of effective engagement which either: utilised peer-led delivery; employed varying degrees of collaboration between communities and health services; or built on empowerment philosophies. Our conceptual framework and models are useful tools for considering appropriate and effective approaches to community engagement. These should be tested and adapted to facilitate intervention design and evaluation. Using this framework may disentangle the relative effectiveness of different models of community engagement, promoting effective, sustainable and appropriate initiatives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 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 401 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 401 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 84 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 11%
Researcher 45 11%
Student > Bachelor 28 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 5%
Other 63 16%
Unknown 116 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 68 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 65 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 57 14%
Psychology 16 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 2%
Other 54 13%
Unknown 131 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 25 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,018,973
of 25,820,938 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,122
of 17,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,517
of 447,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#29
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,820,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 447,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.