Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37046961›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Addressing Health Disparities through Community Participation: A Scoping Review of Co-Creation in Public Health.

Sergio Morales-Garzón, Lucy Anne Parker, Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado, Manuel González-Moro Tolosana, María Pastor-Valero, Elisa Chilet-Rosell

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors.

Sergio Morales-GarzónPublic Health, History of Science and Gynaecology Department, Miguel Hernández University, 03550 Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8666-1090
Lucy Anne ParkerPublic Health, History of Science and Gynaecology Department, Miguel Hernández University, 03550 Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2362-4057
Ildefonso Hernández-AguadoPublic Health, History of Science and Gynaecology Department, Miguel Hernández University, 03550 Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1911-5759
Manuel González-Moro TolosanaPublic Health, History of Science and Gynaecology Department, Miguel Hernández University, 03550 Alicante, Spain.
María Pastor-ValeroPublic Health, History of Science and Gynaecology Department, Miguel Hernández University, 03550 Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9282-5787
Elisa Chilet-RosellPublic Health, History of Science and Gynaecology Department, Miguel Hernández University, 03550 Alicante, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is general agreement regarding the relevance of community involvement in public health policy, practice, and research to reduce health inequities.

objectiveThis review aims to analyse the experiences of community engagement in public health actions, with particular attention to methodologies used and how community participation is articulated. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We searched the Web of Science, EBSCO, and ProQuest for scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. We recorded methodological aspects, the approach to equity, actors that participated in the actions, and participation of the community in different phases (agenda setting, design, implementation, and evaluation).

resultsOf 4331 records, we finally included 31 studies published between 1995 and 2021. Twelve studies referred to Community-Based Participatory Research as the framework used. The actions addressed equity, mainly by tackling economic vulnerability (n = 20, 64%) and racial discrimination (n = 18, 58%). Workshops were the most used method. Participation was frequently observed in the design and implementation phases of the action, but it was reduced to community feedback in the evaluation.

conclusionsCo-created public health actions offer the opportunity to reduce health inequity and promote social change; yet, further effort is needed to involve communities in the entire cycle of decision making.

Indexed as

co-creationequityparticipatory researchpublic health

Identifiers

PMID37046961
PMCPMC10094395

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.