Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33382890›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2021

Power, control, communities and health inequalities I: theories, concepts and analytical frameworks.

Jennie Popay, Margaret Whitehead, Ruth Ponsford, Matt Egan, Rebecca Mead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Role of Power in Co-Approaches to Health Research: Insights From Spain and the United Kingdom With a Rapid Review of Reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Jennie PopayDivision of Health Research, Lancaster University, Health Innovation One, Lancaster, LA1 4AT, UK.
Margaret WhiteheadDepartment of Public Health and Policy, Whelan Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.
Ruth PonsfordHealth Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Matt EganHealth Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Rebecca MeadDivision of Health Research, Lancaster University, Health Innovation One, Lancaster, LA1 4AT, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 16/09/13National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Public Health Research (SPHR) [Project reference: SPHR-SWP-IEQ-CIC]NIHR CLAHRC NWC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is Part I of a three-part series on community empowerment as a route to greater health equity. We argue that community 'empowerment' approaches in the health field are increasingly restricted to an inward gaze on community psycho-social capacities and proximal neighbourhood conditions, neglecting the outward gaze on political and social transformation for greater equity embedded in foundational statements on health promotion. We suggest there are three imperatives if these approaches are to contribute to increased equity. First, to understand pathways from empowerment to health equity and drivers of the depoliticisation of contemporary empowerment practices. Second, to return to the original concept of empowerment processes that support communities of place/interest to develop capabilities needed to exercise collective control over decisions and actions in the pursuit of social justice. Third, to understand, and engage with, power dynamics in community settings. Based on our longitudinal evaluation of a major English community empowerment initiative and research on neighbourhood resilience, we propose two complementary frameworks to support these shifts. The Emancipatory Power Framework presents collective control capabilities as forms of positive power. The Limiting Power Framework elaborates negative forms of power that restrict the development and exercise of a community's capabilities for collective control. Parts II and III of this series present empirical findings on the operationalization of these frameworks. Part II focuses on qualitative markers of shifts in emancipatory power in BL communities and Part III explores how power dynamics unfolded in these neighbourhoods.

Indexed as

Health EquityHealth Status DisparitiesEmpowermentHealth PromotionHumansResidence Characteristicscommunitycontrolhealth inequalitiespower

Identifiers

PMID33382890
PMCPMC8515177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.