Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis

Background

Community engagement has been advanced as a promising way of improving health and reducing health inequalities; however, the approach is not yet supported by a strong evidence base.

Objectives

To undertake a multimethod systematic review which builds on the evidence that underpins the current UK guidance on community engagement; to identify theoretical models underpinning community engagement; to explore mechanisms and contexts through which communities are engaged; to identify community engagement approaches that are effective in reducing health inequalities, under what circumstances and for whom; and to determine the processes and costs associated with their implementation.

Data sources

Databases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), The Campbell Library, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and EPPI-Centre’s Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI) and Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER) were searched from 1990 to August 2011 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Trials evaluating community engagement interventions reporting health outcomes were included.

Review methods

Study eligibility criteria: published after 1990; outcome, economic, or process evaluation; intervention relevant to community engagement; written in English; measured and reported health or community outcomes, or presents cost, resource, or implementation data characterises study populations or reports differential impacts in terms of social determinants of health; conducted in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country. Study appraisal: risk of bias for outcome evaluations; assessment of validity and relevance for process evaluations; comparison against an economic evaluation checklist for economic evaluations. Synthesis methods: four synthesis approaches were adopted for the different evidence types: theoretical, quantitative, process, and economic evidence.

Results

The theoretical synthesis identified key models of community engagement that are underpinned by different theories of changes. Results from 131 studies included in a meta-analysis indicate that there is solid evidence that community engagement interventions have a positive impact on health behaviours, health consequences, self-efficacy and perceived social support outcomes, across various conditions. There is insufficient evidence – particularly for long-term outcomes and indirect beneficiaries – to determine whether one particular model of community engagement is likely to be more effective than any other. There are also insufficient data to test the effects on health inequalities, although there is some evidence to suggest that interventions that improve social inequalities (as measured by social support) also improve health behaviours. There is weak evidence from the effectiveness and process evaluations that certain implementation factors may affect intervention success. From the economic analysis, there is weak but inconsistent evidence that community engagement interventions are cost-effective. By combining findings across the syntheses, we produced a new conceptual framework.

Limitations

Differences in the populations, intervention approaches and health outcomes made it difficult to pinpoint specific strategies for intervention effectiveness. The syntheses of process and economic evidence were limited by the small (generally not rigorous) evidence base.

Conclusions

Community engagement interventions are effective across a wide range of contexts and using a variety of mechanisms. Public health initiatives should incorporate community engagement into intervention design. Evaluations should place greater emphasis on long-term outcomes, outcomes for indirect beneficiaries, process evaluation, and reporting costs and resources data. The theories of change identified and the newly developed conceptual framework are useful tools for researchers and practitioners. We identified trends in the evidence that could provide useful directions for future intervention design and evaluation.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

Examining the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening promotion

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can help to quantify the contribution of the promotion of a screening program to increased participation in screening. The cost-effectiveness (C/E) of screening promotion depends in large part on the endpoints of interest. At the most fundamental level, the C/E of a strategy for promoting screening would focus on the attendance rate, or cost per person screened, and the C/E would be influenced by the costs of promotion, as well as by the size and responsiveness of the target population. In addition, the costs of screening promotion (measured as the cost per additional participant in screening) can be included in a CEA estimate of the screening technology. In this case, depending on the efficacy of the screening test and the costs and influence of the promotion, the C/E of screening may improve or become poorer. In the current study, the authors reviewed the literature on the C/E of cancer screening promotion. The following lessons were learned regarding the C/E of screening and its promotion: 1) high-quality information on the C/E of screening is increasingly available; 2) cost-effective promotion of screening is dependent on cost-effective screening strategies; 3) quality-of-life effects may be important in assessing the overall C/E of screening programs; 4) research efforts aimed at identifying cost-effective approaches to screening promotion are useful but sparse; 5) C/E studies should be better incorporated into well designed effectiveness research efforts; 6) variations in C/E according to intervention characteristics, population characteristics, and context should be evaluated in greater depth; 7) the long-term effects of screening promotion are critical to assessing C/E; 8) the effects of promotion on costs of screening must be better understood; and 9) CEA must be interpreted in light of other information. The authors showed that CEA can be a valuable tool for understanding the merits of health promotion interventions and that CEA is particularly valuable in identifying screening strategies that might be promoted most cost-effectively.

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of mammography promotion by volunteers in rural communities

The Community Trial of Breast Cancer Screening Promotion assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mammography promotion by community volunteer groups in rural areas using three different intervention approaches: individual counseling, community activities, and a combined intervention including both. Societal costs of the interventions were calculated and used in conjunction with measures of effectiveness to calculate cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per additional mammogram and cost per year of life saved. Methods of collecting and using cost information to assess the cost-effectiveness of community interventions are described. The Community Activities intervention was found to be the most cost-effective, at approximately $2,000 for each additional regular mammography user in the community. The cost per year of life saved associated with mammography promotion was approximately $56,000 per year of life saved. Exploratory analyses suggest that the most cost-effective method of promoting mammography use may vary with the target population.