ArticleBMC public health2025
Community engagement approaches to improve health: a cross-case study analysis of barriers and facilitators in UK practice.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Layering perspectives: a structured approach to meaningful patient and public involvement and engagement in the RETURN dental trial.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Integrating health disparities and environmental health into community-based medical education: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- AskMyDoc: engaging, educating, and empowering global majority communities on health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Community health resource project: highlighting One Health resources across rural Georgia to build healthier communities.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterventions that engage communities have been shown to improve health and wellbeing in disadvantaged groups internationally, but there is little evidence on current community-led practice, particularly in relation to the process of community engagement. This paper presents a qualitative cross-case analysis of barriers & facilitators in six UK community engagement projects, using different models of community engagement.
methodsThe primary sampling criteria was the type of approach to community engagement, using a conceptual framework with four main groups: Strengthening communities; Volunteer and peer roles; Collaborations and partnerships; Connecting to community resources. Qualitative interview-based methods (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) explored community and professional perspectives in depth. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data, building within-case studies before comparing findings and using an iterative process to build explanations in a cross-case analysis.
resultsFifty-five people (28 community stakeholders and 27 professional stakeholders) from six selected case study projects took part in the research. Key themes related to successful community engagement were: trust within the community and between community members and service providers; respect for community members' expertise; allowing sufficient time for relationships to establish and for outcomes to be seen; commitment of key people; and flexibility.
conclusionsThis qualitative case study research found that in successful community engagement projects, community expertise is respected and valued, allowing community members to be fully involved and take ownership of the projects. Sufficient time should be allowed for this process. Flexibility and adaptation of project materials, protocols and role descriptions is important in overcoming barriers to community engagement.
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.