Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37134102›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Community engagement initiatives in primary health care to achieve universal health coverage: A realist synthesis of scoping review.

Daniel Erku, Resham Khatri, Aklilu Endalamaw, Eskinder Wolka, Frehiwot Nigatu, Anteneh Zewdie, Yibeltal Assefa

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Improving the core functions of primary care in a Ugandan rural district.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Daniel ErkuCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, SouthPort, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8878-0317
Resham KhatriSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5216-606X
Aklilu EndalamawSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9121-6549
Eskinder WolkaInternational Institute for Primary Health Care in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Frehiwot NigatuInternational Institute for Primary Health Care in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Anteneh ZewdieInternational Institute for Primary Health Care in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Yibeltal AssefaSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity engagement (CE) is an essential component in a primary health care (PHC) and there have been growing calls for service providers to seek greater CE in the planning, design, delivery and evaluation of PHC services. This scoping review aimed to explore the underlying attributes, contexts and mechanisms in which community engagement initiatives contribute to improved PHC service delivery and the realisation of UHC.

methodsPubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched from the inception of each database until May 2022 for studies that described the structure, process, and outcomes of CE interventions implemented in PHC settings. We included qualitative and quantitative studies, process evaluations and systematic or scoping reviews. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction sheet, and the quality of reporting of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The Donabedian's model for quality of healthcare was used to categorise attributes of CE into "structure", "process" and "outcome".

resultsThemes related to the structural aspects of CE initiatives included the methodological approaches (i.e., format and composition), levels of CE (i.e., extent, time, and timing of engagement) and the support processes and strategies (i.e., skills and capacity) that are put in place to enable both communities and service providers to undertake successful CE. Process aspects of CE initiatives discussed in the literature included: i) the role of the community in defining priorities and setting objectives for CE, ii) types and dynamics of the broad range of engagement approaches and activities, and iii) presence of an on-going communication and two-way information sharing. Key CE components and contextual factors that affected the impact of CE initiatives included the wider socio-economic context, power dynamics and representation of communities and their voices, and cultural and organisational issues.

conclusionsOur review highlighted the potential role of CE initiatives in improving decision making process and improving overall health outcomes, and identified several organisational, cultural, political, and contextual factors that affect the success of CE initiatives in PHC settings. Awareness of and responding to the contextual factors will increase the chances of successful CE initiatives.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareUniversal Health InsurancePrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID37134102
PMCPMC10156058

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.