Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec 11;17(1):944.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4958-4.

Narratives of community engagement: a systematic review-derived conceptual framework for public health interventions

Ginny Brunton  1 , James Thomas  2 , Alison O'Mara-Eves  2 , Farah Jamal  2 , Sandy Oliver  2 , Josephine Kavanagh  3
Affiliations

Narratives of community engagement: a systematic review-derived conceptual framework for public health interventions

Ginny Brunton et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Government policy increasingly supports engaging communities to promote health. It is critical to consider whether such strategies are effective, for whom, and under what circumstances. However, 'community engagement' is defined in diverse ways and employed for different reasons. Considering the theory and context we developed a conceptual framework which informs understanding about what makes an effective (or ineffective) community engagement intervention.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of community engagement in public health interventions using: stakeholder involvement; searching, screening, appraisal and coding of research literature; and iterative thematic syntheses and meta-analysis. A conceptual framework of community engagement was refined, following interactions between the framework and each review stage.

Results: From 335 included reports, three products emerged: (1) two strong theoretical 'meta-narratives': one, concerning the theory and practice of empowerment/engagement as an independent objective; and a more utilitarian perspective optimally configuring health services to achieve defined outcomes. These informed (2) models that were operationalized in subsequent meta-analysis. Both refined (3) the final conceptual framework. This identified multiple dimensions by which community engagement interventions may differ. Diverse combinations of intervention purpose, theory and implementation were noted, including: ways of defining communities and health needs; initial motivations for community engagement; types of participation; conditions and actions necessary for engagement; and potential issues influencing impact. Some dimensions consistently co-occurred, leading to three overarching models of effective engagement which either: utilised peer-led delivery; employed varying degrees of collaboration between communities and health services; or built on empowerment philosophies.

Conclusions: Our conceptual framework and models are useful tools for considering appropriate and effective approaches to community engagement. These should be tested and adapted to facilitate intervention design and evaluation. Using this framework may disentangle the relative effectiveness of different models of community engagement, promoting effective, sustainable and appropriate initiatives.

Keywords: Community engagement; Conceptual framework; Health promotion; Public health; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

Co-authors hold multiple degrees in different disciplines that span sociology, psychology, history, music, midwifery, nursing, economics, and research methodology.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This project was approved by our Faculty Research Ethics board; copies of the ethics application are available from the report authors. The project complies with the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Research Ethics Framework.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Initial conceptual framework
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Final conceptual framework
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Varying degrees of collaboration between health/other statutory services and communities From Popay et al. (2006) [76]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . NICE public health guidance 9: community engagement to improve health. London: NICE; 2008.
    1. Department of Health . Commissioning and system management - PPE. Real involvement: working with people to improve health services. London: Department of Health; 2008.
    1. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Reviews. 2012;1(1):28. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(2):417–430. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. O'Mara-Eves A, Brunton G, McDaid D, Oliver S, Kavanagh J, Jamal F, et al. Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis. Public Health Res. 2013;1(4):548. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources