ArticleJournal of community practice2026
Article in Journal of community practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is limited evidence regarding strategies that policymakers can use to revitalize neighborhoods without contributing to displacement, particularly those involving community advocacy. This study examines how a sample of Latino Catholic parishioners in the eastern Los Angeles area perceive advocacy and neighborhood change before and after participating in a park environmental advocacy training. Two groups with a total of 16 participants (85% women, median age 68) of a faith-based physical activity intervention received a two-day advocacy training in December 2023 and March 2024. The training involved conducting a park audit to identify environmental issues and developing advocacy plans to engage local decision-makers. Participants completed pre- and post-training surveys (n=12) on advocacy knowledge and post-training interviews (n=13; 85% in Spanish) on perceptions of advocacy, neighborhoods, and the training. Interviews were analyzed using a reflexive thematic approach. Participants reported general barriers to advocacy such as lack of time, knowledge, and distrust of government officials. General facilitators included past advocacy success and social responsibility. Although survey results showed no statistically significant change in advocacy knowledge post-intervention in this small sample, interviews suggested that participants experienced increased perceived social cohesion and motivation to engage in future advocacy. Participants described how advocacy could improve neighborhood cohesion and satisfaction. Findings support the role of community-led advocacy in neighborhood revitalization efforts to advance health and environmental equity in Latino communities.
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.