Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31075120›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Community participation in health services development, implementation, and evaluation: A systematic review of empowerment, health, community, and process outcomes.

Victoria Haldane, Fiona L H Chuah, Aastha Srivastava, Shweta R Singh, Gerald C H Koh, Chia Kee Seng, Helena Legido-Quigley

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 268 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
268citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

268 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. A Systematic Review of Black People Coping With Racism: Approaches, Analysis, and Empowerment.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

208 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Victoria HaldaneSwee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Fiona L H ChuahSwee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Aastha SrivastavaSwee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Shweta R SinghSwee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Gerald C H KohSwee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Chia Kee SengSwee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Helena Legido-QuigleySwee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-4113-4542

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity participation is widely believed to be beneficial to the development, implementation and evaluation of health services. However, many challenges to successful and sustainable community involvement remain. Importantly, there is little evidence on the effect of community participation in terms of outcomes at both the community and individual level. Our systematic review seeks to examine the evidence on outcomes of community participation in high and upper-middle income countries. METHODS AND

findingsThis review was developed according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included those that involved the community, service users, consumers, households, patients, public and their representatives in the development, implementation, and evaluation of health services, policy or interventions. We searched the following databases from January 2000 to September 2016: Medline, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, and LILACs. We independently screened articles for inclusion, conducted data extraction, and assessed studies for risk of bias. No language restrictions were made. 27,232 records were identified, with 23,468 after removal of duplicates. Following titles and abstracts screening, 49 met the inclusion criteria for this review. A narrative synthesis of the findings was conducted. Outcomes were categorised as process outcomes, community outcomes, health outcomes, empowerment and stakeholder perspectives. Our review reports a breadth of evidence that community involvement has a positive impact on health, particularly when substantiated by strong organisational and community processes. This is in line with the notion that participatory approaches and positive outcomes including community empowerment and health improvements do not occur in a linear progression, but instead consists of complex processes influenced by an array of social and cultural factors.

conclusionThis review adds to the evidence base supporting the effectiveness of community participation in yielding positive outcomes at the organizational, community and individual level.

trial registrationProspero record number: CRD42016048244.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationEmpowermentGlobal HealthHealth ServicesHumansPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID31075120
PMCPMC6510456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.