BackgroundCommunity engagement has been advanced as a promising way of improving health and reducing health inequalities; however, the approach is not yet supported by a strong evidence base.ObjectivesTo undertake a multimethod systematic review which builds on the evidence that underpins the current UK guidance on community engagement; to identify theoretical models underpinning community engagement; to explore mechanisms and contexts through which communities are engaged; to identify community engagement approaches that are effective in reducing health inequalities, under what circumstances and for whom; and to determine the processes and costs associated with their implementation.Data sourcesDatabases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), The Campbell Library, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and EPPI-Centre’s Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI) and Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER) were searched from 1990 to August 2011 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Trials evaluating community engagement interventions reporting health outcomes were included.Review methodsStudy eligibility criteria: published after 1990; outcome, economic, or process evaluation; intervention relevant to community engagement; written in English; measured and reported health or community outcomes, or presents cost, resource, or implementation data characterises study populations or reports differential impacts in terms of social determinants of health; conducted in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country. Study appraisal: risk of bias for outcome evaluations; assessment of validity and relevance for process evaluations; comparison against an economic evaluation checklist for economic evaluations. Synthesis methods: four synthesis approaches were adopted for the different evidence types: theoretical, quantitative, process, and economic evidence.ResultsThe theoretical synthesis identified key models of community engagement that are underpinned by different theories of changes. Results from 131 studies included in a meta-analysis indicate that there is solid evidence that community engagement interventions have a positive impact on health behaviours, health consequences, self-efficacy and perceived social support outcomes, across various conditions. There is insufficient evidence – particularly for long-term outcomes and indirect beneficiaries – to determine whether one particular model of community engagement is likely to be more effective than any other. There are also insufficient data to test the effects on health inequalities, although there is some evidence to suggest that interventions that improve social inequalities (as measured by social support) also improve health behaviours. There is weak evidence from the effectiveness and process evaluations that certain implementation factors may affect intervention success. From the economic analysis, there is weak but inconsistent evidence that community engagement interventions are cost-effective. By combining findings across the syntheses, we produced a new conceptual framework.LimitationsDifferences in the populations, intervention approaches and health outcomes made it difficult to pinpoint specific strategies for intervention effectiveness. The syntheses of process and economic evidence were limited by the small (generally not rigorous) evidence base.ConclusionsCommunity engagement interventions are effective across a wide range of contexts and using a variety of mechanisms. Public health initiatives should incorporate community engagement into intervention design. Evaluations should place greater emphasis on long-term outcomes, outcomes for indirect beneficiaries, process evaluation, and reporting costs and resources data. The theories of change identified and the newly developed conceptual framework are useful tools for researchers and practitioners. We identified trends in the evidence that could provide useful directions for future intervention design and evaluation.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

No abstract

A systematic review was conducted to examine the barriers to, and facilitators of, healthy eating among young people (11-16 years). The review focused on the wider determinants of health, examining community- and society-level interventions. Seven outcome evaluations and eight studies of young people's views were included. The effectiveness of the interventions was mixed, with improvements in knowledge and increases in healthy eating but differences according to gender. Barriers to healthy eating included poor school meal provision and ease of access to, relative cheapness of and personal taste preferences for fast food. Facilitators included support from family, wider availability of healthy foods, desire to look after one's appearance and will-power. Friends and teachers were generally not a common source of information. Some of the barriers and facilitators identified by young people had been addressed by soundly evaluated effective interventions, but significant gaps were identified where no evaluated interventions appear to have been published (e.g. better labelling of food products), or where there were no methodologically sound evaluations. Rigorous evaluation is required particularly to assess the effectiveness of increasing the availability of affordable healthy food in the public and private spaces occupied by young people.

BackgroundInequalities 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsThere 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1352-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundSystematic reviews that address policy and practice questions in relation to complex interventions frequently need not only to assess the efficacy of a given intervention but to identify which intervention - and which intervention components - might be most effective in particular situations. Here, intervention replication is rare, and commonly used synthesis methods are less useful when the focus of analysis is the identification of those components of an intervention that are critical to its success.MethodsHaving identified initial theories of change in a previous analysis, we explore the potential of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to assist with complex syntheses through a worked example. Developed originally in the area of political science and historical sociology, a QCA aims to identify those configurations of participant, intervention and contextual characteristics that may be associated with a given outcome. Analysing studies in these terms facilitates the identification of necessary and sufficient conditions for the outcome to be obtained. Since QCA is predicated on the assumption that multiple pathways might lead to the same outcome and does not assume a linear additive model in terms of changes to a particular condition (that is, it can cope with ‘tipping points’ in complex interventions), it appears not to suffer from some of the limitations of the statistical methods often used in meta-analysis.ResultsThe worked example shows how the QCA reveals that our initial theories of change were unable to distinguish between ‘effective’ and ‘highly effective’ interventions. Through the iterative QCA process, other intervention characteristics are identified that better explain the observed results.ConclusionsQCA is a promising alternative (or adjunct), particularly to the standard fall-back of a ‘narrative synthesis’ when a quantitative synthesis is impossible, and should be considered when reviews are broad and heterogeneity is significant. There are very few examples of its use with systematic review data at present, and further methodological work is needed to establish optimal conditions for its use and to document process, practice, and reporting standards.