ArticleAtencion primaria2024
[How to improve community engagement in health: Analysis of proposed actions following the implementation of a community engagement assessment tool].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meanings of participation in a community initiative: a discourse analysis at Complejo SACUDE (Montevideo, Uruguay).Frontiers in sociology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the lines of action identified in the health promotion projects participating in the EvaluA GPS research, and their relationship with the scores assigned in EvalGuia, a tool for evaluating evidence-based community participation.
designQualitative-quantitative multicentre study.
settingPrimary care or intersectoral network of primary care and municipalities in five autonomous communities in Spain.
participantsParticipants of 10 health promotion projects, selected with convenience sampling, following inclusion criteria (projects with a minimum of community engagement and centred on community health).
methodData were collected through questionnaires (EvalGuía tool) and participatory workshops. Quantitative data were analysed with descriptive statistics, qualitative data were analysed using matrix analysis.
resultsAfter implementing the EvalGuide tool, the lowest scores were assigned in outcome evaluation, knowledge of policies related to community participation, diversity in the core working group, inclusivity policies, financial resources and diffusion of results. The lines of action proposed were heterogeneous and did not always match with those prioritised as lower score. The prioritised lines revolved around project organisation and communication.
conclusionsThe EvalGuide tool can be helpful to design action plans in Health Promotion projects. The implementation of measures in 12 months to increase the diversity of the core working group, to incorporate work-life balance measures or to improve evaluation is difficult. More time is needed to implement such measures.
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.