Do multiple community-based interventions on health promotion tackle health inequalities?

Abstract

Background Previous systematic reviews of the impact of multi-component community-based health promotion interventions on reducing health inequalities by socio-economic status (SES) were restricted to physical activity and smoking behavior, and revealed limited and rather disillusioning evidence. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review worldwide to close this gap, including a wide range of health outcomes. Methods The Pubmed and PsycINFO databases were screened for relevant articles published between January 1999 and August 2019, revealing 87 potentially eligible publications out of 2876 hits. In addition, three studies out of a prior review on the effectiveness of community-based interventions were reanalyzed under the new research question. After a systematic review process, 23 papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis. Results More than half (56.5%) of the studies reported improvements of socially disadvantaged communities overall (i.e. reduced inequalities at the area level) in at least one health behavior and/or health status outcome. Amongst the remaining studies we found some beneficial effects in the most deprived sub-groups of residents (8.2%) and studies with no differences between intervention and control areas (34.8%). There was no evidence that any program under review resulted in an increase in health disparity. Conclusions Our results confirm that community-based interventions may be reducing absolute health inequalities of deprived and disadvantaged populations, but their potential so far is not fully realized. For the future, greater attention should be paid to inequalities between sub-groups within communities when analyzing changes in health inequality over time.

Factors associated with participation in the organized cervical cancer screening program in the greater Paris area (France): An analysis among more than 200,000 women

“…However, no association was observed either when categorizing this indicator in a more refined way (into five categories), nor when restricting analyses to the population, which was the most likely to benefit from these interventions (most deprived neighborhoods in the most deprived towns). Even empowerment interventions had no effect on participation contrary to the previous findings (Nickel and von dem Knesebeck, 2020). This type of intervention is likely to take time before becoming efficient.…”

Community mobilisation approaches to preventing and reducing adolescent multiple risk behaviour: a realist review protocol

“…Researchers have highlighted that with adequate resources and training, support from within the community and adoption of evidence-based strategies, community mobilisation approaches have promise as an effective vehicle for addressing adolescent multiple risk behaviour [ 19 ]. Further, community-mobilisation efforts are also thought to be well suited to achieving health equity [ 25 ], due to ‘shared decision making’ [ 26 ] and the incorporation of ‘upstream’ or structural elements [ 27 ], but this has yet to be explored in relation to adolescent multiple risk behaviour interventions.…”

Healthy Snacks in School: How Do Regulations Work? A Mixed‐Design Study

“…Several arguments support the implementation of such a regulation. First, unlike interventions targeting individual education and behavior that may reach mostly educated parents, regulation applies to all children and families regardless of education or socioeconomic status and has the potential to reduce health inequalities 18 . It promotes the development of healthy habits at a younger age; most importantly, it ensures coherence with health messages promoted in class.…”