Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38939557›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

A realist evaluation of community champion and participatory action approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Neil Howlett, Olujoke Fakoya, Charis Bontoft, Isobel Simmons, Lisa Miners, Adam P Wagner, Katherine Brown

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Neil HowlettDepartment of Psychology, Sport, and Geography, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Olujoke FakoyaDepartment of Psychology, Sport, and Geography, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Charis BontoftDepartment of Psychology, Sport, and Geography, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Isobel SimmonsDepartment of Psychology, Sport, and Geography, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Lisa MinersNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Adam P WagnerNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Katherine BrownDepartment of Psychology, Sport, and Geography, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health teams tried several approaches to circulate accurate health information and engage with community members to understand what they need from public health services. Two such approaches were community champions and community participatory action research (CPAR). This study evaluates two champion programmes and a CPAR programme in terms of what worked, for whom, and in what contexts, including the funding and resourcing associated with implementation. Methods: Between June 2022 and June 2023, a realist evaluation of three distinct case studies (COVID-19 champions, Vaccine Champions, and CPAR programmes) in the city of Southampton in England was conducted in three stages: development of initial programme theories and collection of additional contextual information, including funding and resources associated with delivering each programme; initial programme theory testing; synthesis of final programme theories. Data was collected primarily through semi-structured interviews ( Results: The City Council used £642 k from two funding awards to deliver the programmes: COVID-19 Champions £41 k; Vaccine Champions £485 k; and CPAR programmes £115 k. Twenty-eight initial programme theories were generated, which were "tested" to support, refine, or refute context-mechanism-outcome relationships, resulting finally in a set of 22 programme theories across the three programmes. Six demi-regularities were generated, each featuring in multiple programme theories, and providing data on how and why these programmes can work, and in which contexts: (1) building trust through community connections; (2) fostering relationships and collaboration; (3) provision of training and resources; (4) local community knowledge and expertise; (5) community representation and leadership; (6) appropriate communication and information sharing. Conclusion: This study provides new knowledge and understanding of the factors affecting the implementation of community champion and CPAR approaches during public health emergencies. These findings suggest that representation and involvement of community members, establishing and building on trust, adequate training and resources, and clear communication from trusted community members and organisations are catalysts for meaningful engagement with communities.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchCOVID-19EnglandFocus GroupsHumansPandemicsProgram EvaluationPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2community championscommunity participatory action researchCOVID-19COVID-19 championrealist evaluationvaccine champion

Identifiers

PMID38939557
PMCPMC11208485

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.