METHODOLOGY: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist was used to perform this review. Health-related databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies. A consolidated framework with five domains was developed after undertaking a six-phase reflective thematic assessment of the data.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were identified, spanning eight low-and middle-income countries of the Indo-Pacific region including Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. The studies in this review covered the period from 2002 to 2021. A broad range of study designs and objectives were revealed across these 13 studies. An array of communities such as the local government, project-related health staff, local health services staff, community leaders, local communities/residences/general public, heads of households, community health volunteers, school teachers, and schoolchildren participated in these dengue related studies. The five Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains of 'intervention characteristics', 'inner setting', 'outer setting',' individual characteristics', and 'program implementations' were used to identify and describe barriers and facilitators.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate a range of barriers and facilitators to community engagement in dengue control in the selected LMIC in the Indo-Pacific countries. Future health services research on dengue control approaches should be carefully planned, methodologically constructed, aligned with community engagement principles, and involve considerable community participation at all stages of the research.
METHODOLOGY: A rapid evidence review was conducted to identify how community engagement is used for infectious disease prevention and control during epidemics. Three databases were searched in addition to extensive snowballing for grey literature. Previous epidemics were limited to Ebola, Zika, SARS, Middle East respiratory syndromeand H1N1 since 2000. No restrictions were applied to study design or language.
RESULTS: From 1112 references identified, 32 articles met our inclusion criteria, which detail 37 initiatives. Six main community engagement actors were identified: local leaders, community and faith-based organisations, community groups, health facility committees, individuals and key stakeholders. These worked on different functions: designing and planning, community entry and trust building, social and behaviour change communication, risk communication, surveillance and tracing, and logistics and administration.
CONCLUSION: COVID-19's global presence and social transmission pathways require social and community responses. This may be particularly important to reach marginalised populations and to support equity-informed responses. Aligning previous community engagement experience with current COVID-19 community-based strategy recommendations highlights how communities can play important and active roles in prevention and control. Countries worldwide are encouraged to assess existing community engagement structures and use community engagement approaches to support contextually specific, acceptable and appropriate COVID-19 prevention and control measures.
MAIN BODY: As an exemplar, we reflect on how, in the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR), we set out to create a supportive, organised environment with the overarching value of 'keeping patients at the heart of everything we do'. The key has been in planning and creating a suitably funded organisational infrastructure with dedicated PPI researchers along with the development of and expectation to abide by an agreed set of norms and values. Specifically, expecting AUKCAR PhD students and early career researchers to engage with PPI has established a working mode that we hope will last. Regular interactions and proactive Patient Leads increase PPI network cohesion.
CONCLUSION: With adaptation, the AUKCAR PPI model can be translated to international contexts.
MAIN TEXT: To overcome these barriers, stakeholders will need to design policies and work in ways that provide an enabling environment for innovative products and services. Inherently about people, the incorporation of community engagement approaches is necessary for both the development of social innovations and accompanying research methodologies. Whilst the 'appropriate' level of participation is linked to intended outcomes, researchers have a role to play in better understanding how to harness the power of community engagement and to ensure that community perspectives form part of the evidence base that informs policy and practice.
CONCLUSIONS: To effectively operate at the intersection between policy, social innovation, and research, all collaborators need to enter the process with the mindset of learners, rather than experts. Methods - quantitative and qualitative - must be selected according to research questions. The fields of implementation research, community-based participatory research, and realist research, amongst others, have much to offer. So do other sectors, notably education and business. In all this, researchers must assume the mantel of responsibility for research and not transfer the onus to communities under the guise of participation. By leveraging the expertise and knowledge of different ecosystem actors, we can design responsive health systems that integrate innovative approaches in ways that are greater than the sum of their parts.
METHODS: HOPE 4 was an open, community-based, cluster-randomised controlled trial involving 1371 individuals with new or poorly controlled hypertension from 30 communities (defined as townships) in Colombia and Malaysia. 16 communities were randomly assigned to control (usual care, n=727), and 14 (n=644) to the intervention. After community screening, the intervention included treatment of cardiovascular disease risk factors by NPHWs using tablet computer-based simplified management algorithms and counselling programmes; free antihypertensive and statin medications recommended by NPHWs but supervised by physicians; and support from a family member or friend (treatment supporter) to improve adherence to medications and healthy behaviours. The primary outcome was the change in Framingham Risk Score 10-year cardiovascular disease risk estimate at 12 months between intervention and control participants. The HOPE 4 trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01826019.
FINDINGS: All communities completed 12-month follow-up (data on 97% of living participants, n=1299). The reduction in Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular disease risk was -6·40% (95% CI 8·00 to -4·80) in the control group and -11·17% (-12·88 to -9·47) in the intervention group, with a difference of change of -4·78% (95% CI -7·11 to -2·44, p<0·0001). There was an absolute 11·45 mm Hg (95% CI -14·94 to -7·97) greater reduction in systolic blood pressure, and a 0·41 mmol/L (95% CI -0·60 to -0·23) reduction in LDL with the intervention group (both p<0·0001). Change in blood pressure control status (<140 mm Hg) was 69% in the intervention group versus 30% in the control group (p<0·0001). There were no safety concerns with the intervention.
INTERPRETATION: A comprehensive model of care led by NPHWs, involving primary care physicians and family that was informed by local context, substantially improved blood pressure control and cardiovascular disease risk. This strategy is effective, pragmatic, and has the potential to substantially reduce cardiovascular disease compared with current strategies that are typically physician based.
FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Grand Challenges Canada; Ontario SPOR Support Unit and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; Boehringer Ingelheim; Department of Management of Non-Communicable Diseases, WHO; and Population Health Research Institute. VIDEO ABSTRACT.
Methods: For quantitative data collection, the random, purposive, and convenient sampling techniques were used and 156 respondents selected from relevant organizations operating in Bauchi state, Nigeria, and 15 respondents for Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). A Semi-structured questionnaire was the study instrument, and consent from the participants as well as ethical clearances were duly obtained.
Results: The study revealed that 87.8% of the respondents indicate un-friendly operational policies, while 88.9% of them identified lack of resources (human, money and machineries) as impediments to project sustainability. Also, 74.3% of the respondents said partnership among key stakeholders and 86.6% of them affirmed that community participation and use of available (local) resources ensure health project sustainability. The study further revealed that CSOs fund health projects, support government efforts and encourage development of project sustainability road map in the state.
Conclusion: Hence, health project sustainability plan should form part of a project right from inception through the donor period and thereafter. In addition to the above, internal income framework, community involvement, enabling policies and partnership among stakeholders, especially with the host government, should always guide project implementation, because without these in place, project sustainability will remain a mirage.
OBJECTIVE: To propose a model that provides a methodological tool to increase women's participation in the decision making process towards breast cancer prevention. To address this, an evaluation framework was developed that includes a typology of community participation approaches (models) in health, as well as five levels of participation in health programs proposed by Rifkin (1985 and 1991).
METHOD: This model explains the community participation approaches in breast cancer prevention in Iran. In a 'medical approach', participation occurs in the form of women's adherence to mammography recommendations. As a 'health services approach', women get the benefits of a health project or participate in the available program activities related to breast cancer prevention. The model provides the five levels of participation in health programs along with the 'health services approach' and explains how to implement those levels for women's participation in available breast cancer prevention programs at the local level.
CONCLUSION: It is hoped that a focus on the 'medical approach' (top-down) and the 'health services approach' (top-down) will bring sustainable changes in breast cancer prevention and will consequently produce the 'community development approach' (bottom-up). This could be achieved using a comprehensive approach to breast cancer prevention by combining the individual and community strategies in designing an intervention program for breast cancer prevention.