ArticleHealth promotion international2022
What works for vulnerable families? Interpretations of effective health promotion.
Article in Health promotion international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging Influencers to Reach and Engage Vulnerable Individuals With a Digital Health Intervention: Quasi-Experimental Field Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Under the umbrella of the Healthy Futures Nearby programme, 46 small-scale projects were funded to promote changes in health-related behaviours (smoking, alcohol, diet and exercise) and to improve perceived health among vulnerable families in the Netherlands. The evaluation of these health-related multiple project programmes is often based on funder-defined outcomes and strategies. However, within the funded projects, assumptions about improving the health of vulnerable families based on local knowledge and experiences will also shape the project outcomes and strategies. These additional outcomes and strategies are project-specific interpretations of effective health promotion. Knowing these interpretations is crucial for the policy related and scientific relevance of the evaluation. Therefore, we aimed to determine the interpretations of each project and how they translate into relevant inputs for the overall evaluation of the programme. Based on 46 semi-structured group interviews with local project stakeholders, we produced a list of assumptions about what health promotion for vulnerable families should look like and then identified five main clusters: (i) strategies of offering pre-defined, health (behaviour)-related activities to families, (ii) actively involving vulnerable families in the initiative, (iii) assumptions about how health promotion should start with or include non-health-related topics, (iv) assumptions on how one should build on what already exists in the local context of the families and (v) assumptions on the role of the (health) professional in health promotion among vulnerable families. These project interpretations of effective health promotion provide inputs and priorities for the HFN programme's overall evaluation.
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.