↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of community engagement in public health interventions for disadvantaged groups: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2015
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
53 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
233 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
571 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The effectiveness of community engagement in public health interventions for disadvantaged groups: a meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1352-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Inequalities in health are acknowledged in many developed countries, whereby disadvantaged groups systematically suffer from worse health outcomes such as lower life expectancy than non-disadvantaged groups. Engaging members of disadvantaged communities in public health initiatives has been suggested as a way to reduce health inequities. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of public health interventions that engage the community on a range of health outcomes across diverse health issues. We searched the following sources for systematic reviews of public health interventions: Cochrane CDSR and CENTRAL, Campbell Library, DARE, NIHR HTA programme website, HTA database, and DoPHER. Through the identified reviews, we collated a database of primary studies that appeared to be relevant, and screened the full-text documents of those primary studies against our inclusion criteria. In parallel, we searched the NHS EED and TRoPHI databases for additional primary studies. For the purposes of these analyses, study design was limited to randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Only interventions conducted in OECD countries and published since 1990 were included. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of health behaviour, health consequences, self-efficacy, and social support outcomes, and a narrative summary of community outcomes. We tested a range of moderator variables, with a particular emphasis on the model of community engagement used as a potential moderator of intervention effectiveness. Of the 9,467 primary studies scanned, we identified 131 for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The overall effect size for health behaviour outcomes is d = .33 (95% CI .26, .40). The interventions were also effective in increasing health consequences (d = .16, 95% CI .06, .27); health behaviour self-efficacy (d = .41, 95% CI .16, .65) and perceived social support (d = .41, 95% CI .23, .65). Although the type of community engagement was not a significant moderator of effect, we identified some trends across studies. There is solid evidence that community engagement interventions have a positive impact on a range of health outcomes across various conditions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether one particular model of community engagement is more effective than any other.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 571 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
New Zealand 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 560 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 113 20%
Researcher 86 15%
Student > Bachelor 68 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 36 6%
Other 122 21%
Unknown 103 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 116 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 99 17%
Social Sciences 90 16%
Psychology 36 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 2%
Other 83 15%
Unknown 136 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 26 September 2022.
All research outputs
#454,127
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#405
of 14,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,661
of 357,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#6
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 357,706 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.