ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2023
[Comparing Community Capacities by Local Actors and External Experts: An Audit of Health Promotion Activities in Lenzsiedlung, Hamburg].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe questionnaire "Capacity building in Neighbourhoods (KEQ)" has five dimensions which are regarded as intermediary outcome results of community health promotion. The questionnaire was to be completed by local actors and thus has some features of self-evaluation. We wanted to find out whether external experts make similar or more critical assessments.
methodsWe conducted an audit of the health promotion activities in our intervention area (Hamburg neighbourhood Lenzsiedlung) in two steps. Five external health promotion experts functioned as auditors with experience in evaluating good practice projects of health promotion. The first part of the audit was a document-based evaluation, the second part a visit-based one during a two-day stay in the intervention area.
resultsIn the comparison of local actors' assessments (KEQ questionnaire results) with those of external experts in the document-based audit, the judgements of external experts were more positive on all five dimensions of the questionnaire (deviations from +0.1 to +0.9 on a scale from 1 to 5). In the visit-based audit, there was convergence in the assessments of the local actors and the external experts. They were partly identical; only the dimension "local leadership" was viewed slightly more critically by the external experts.
conclusionsBased on our discussion of the four methodical problems of the comparison, we conclude that, on the whole, local actors do not tend to evaluate their activities too positively. However, if resources are available, one should try to confirm local views of outcomes by external assessments.
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.