BackgroundSocial innovation in health is a community-engaged process that links social change and health improvement, drawing on the diverse strengths of local individuals and institutions. However, there are few studies that examine community engagement, financing and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to use a qualitative descriptive analysis to assess 40 social innovations in health identified through a global open call.MethodsThis qualitative analysis examined social innovation case studies from low- and middle-income countries identified by a global social innovation network. A crowdsourcing open call identified projects and key components of each social innovation were evaluated by an independent panel. We used a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention framework to measure community engagement as shared leadership, collaboration, involvement, consultation or informing. We used descriptive statistics to examine key aspects of community engagement, financing, health outcomes and non-health outcomes.ResultsData from 40 social innovations were examined. Social innovations were from Africa (21/40), Asia (11/40), and Latin America and the Caribbean (8/40). Community engagement was diverse and robust across the cases and 60% (24/40) had either shared leadership or collaboration. Financing for social innovation came from research grants (23), national or provincial government support (15), revenues from sales (13), donations (13) and local government support (10). Social innovations reported health and non-health outcomes.ConclusionOur data demonstrate social innovations had robust community engagement. Innovative financing mechanisms provide mechanisms for sustaining social innovations. Further research on health and non-health outcomes of social innovation is needed.

Background Social innovation in health provides innovative solutions to address healthcare delivery gaps and it relies on engaging community. However, little is known about factors that influence community engagement in health research. The study sought an in-depth understanding of elements of community engagement in social innovations identified by the global social innovation in health initiative network. Methods The study employed a sequential mixed methods study approach, which involved a series of semi-structured interviews with 27 social innovators followed by an online survey among social innovation researchers. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using NVivo 11. Themes identified from the qualitative study informed the development of a survey instrument on community engagement. The survey data were analyzed using STATA version-14 and descriptive statistics were presented. Results Community engagement in social innovation was mostly utilized during during delivery of interventions (213; 79.2%), intervention identification and design (179; 66.5%), and problem identification (167; 62.1%). About half of the social innovations (135; 52.1%) had collaborate or shared leadership level of community engagement. We noted differential participation of community stakeholders at different stages of community engagement in social innovations. Social innovations built capacity of community stakeholders to offer health services to communities. Community engagement in social innovations resulted into intervention acceptance, and improved sustainability and community ownership of interventions. Conclusion The study shows moderate community engagement in social innovations in health. Creating strong governance structures as well as co-creating interventions with communities are vital towards achieving high community engagement in social innovation in health.

What is already known on this topic? Hypertension is the most common cardiovascular disease in the world. If left uncontrolled, it can cause stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, renal failure, and hypertensive retinopathy. Diagnosis is the first step in managing and treating hypertension. The condition is highly undiagnosed in sub-Saharan Africa because screening programs are limited. What is added by this report?In Uganda, most primary health care facilities offer diagnostic services, but few have functioning diagnostic equipment, and refresher training is rarely available for health workers.What are the implications for public health practice? If diagnostic services are not available on a timely basis, the burden of hypertension will continue to increase in Uganda.

No abstract