ArticleSozial- und Praventivmedizin2006
Process evaluation of a Dutch community intervention to improve health related behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods.
Article in Sozial- und Praventivmedizin, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A RE-AIM evaluation of evidence-based multi-level interventions to improve obesity-related behaviours in adults: a systematic review (the SPOTLIGHT project).The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2014Pooled it
- Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Cross-sector Collaboration Between Public Health, Healthcare and Social Services Improves Retention: Findings from a Nurse Home Visiting Program.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether a community intervention on health related behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods was delivered as planned and the extent of exposure to the intervention programme.
methodsData were gathered throughout the intervention period using minutes of meetings, registration forms and a postal questionnaire among residents in intervention and comparison neighbourhoods.
resultsOverall, the intervention was delivered according to the key principles of a "community approach", although community participation could have been improved. Neighbourhood coalitions organized more than 50 health related activities in the neighbourhoods over a two-year period. Most activities were directed at attracting attention, providing information, and increasing awareness and knowledge, and at changing behaviours. Programme awareness and programme participation were 24% respectively 3% among residents in the intervention neighbourhoods.
conclusionsThe process evaluation indicated that it was feasible to implement a community intervention according to the key principles of the "community approach" in deprived neighbourhoods. However, it is unlikely that the total package of intervention activities had enough strength and sufficient exposure to attain community-wide health behaviour change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.