ArticleBMJ open2024
Can communities be mobilised to build capacity to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic? A qualitative process evaluation.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
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
objectivesGovernment guidance to manage COVID-19 was challenged by low levels of health and digital literacy and lack of information in different languages. 'Covid Confidence' sessions (CC-sessions) were evaluated to assess their effectiveness in counteracting misinformation and provide an alternative source of information about the pandemic.
designWe worked with community anchor organisations to co-ordinate online CC-sessions serving three economically deprived, ethnically mixed, neighbourhoods. We conducted a qualitative, participatory process evaluation, in tandem with the CC-sessions to explore whether a popular opinion leader/local champion model of health promotion could mobilise pandemic responses. Group discussions were supplemented by final interviews to assess changes in community capacity to mobilise.
settingSheffield, England, September 2020 to November 2021.
participantsCommunity leaders, workers and volunteers representing a variety of local organisations resulted in 314 attendances at CC-sessions. A group of local health experts helped organisations make sense of government information.
resultsCC-sessions fostered cross-organisational relationships, which enabled rapid community responses. Community champions successfully adapted information to different groups. Listening, identifying individual concerns and providing practical support enabled people to make informed decisions on managing exposure and getting vaccinated. Some people were unable to comply with self-isolation due to overcrowded housing and the need to work. Communities drew on existing resources and networks.
conclusionsCC-sessions promoted stronger links between community organisations which reduced mistrust of government information. In future, government efforts to manage pandemics should partner with communities to codesign and implement prevention and control 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.