National Institute for Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720, BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Tilburg University, Tranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, PO Box 90153, 5000, LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
BMC Public Health. 2020 Apr 16;20(1):508. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08616-6.
Community engagement is increasingly seen as key to improving healthcare systems and to increasing communities' involvement in the shaping of their own communities. This paper describes how 'community engagement' (CE) is understood and being operationalised in the Dutch healthcare system by investigating the CE approaches being implemented in six different regions and by examining engaged citizens' and professionals' experiences of those CE approaches.
For this realist study, interviews and focus groups were held with citizens (16) and professionals (42) involved in CE approaches in the six regions. Additionally, CE-related activities were observed to supplement interview data.
This study shows that citizens and professionals defined and experienced CE differently and that they differed in who they felt had ownership of CE. The CE approaches implemented in community-led initiatives and organisationally-led initiatives varied accordingly. Furthermore, both citizens and professionals were searching for meaningful ways for citizens to have more control over healthcare in their own communities.
CE can be improved by, first of all, developing a shared and overarching vision of what CE should look like, establishing clear roles and remits for organisations and communities, and taking active measures to ensure CE is more inclusive and representative of harder-to-reach groups. At the same time, to help ensure such shared visions do not further entrench power imbalances between citizens and professionals, professionals require training in successful CE approaches.
社区参与越来越被视为改善医疗体系和增加社区参与塑造自身社区的关键。本文通过调查在六个不同地区实施的社区参与方法,并研究参与的公民和专业人员对这些社区参与方法的体验,描述了荷兰医疗体系中“社区参与”(CE)的理解和运作方式。
为了进行这项现实主义研究,对六个地区参与社区参与方法的公民(16 人)和专业人员(42 人)进行了访谈和焦点小组讨论。此外,还观察了与 CE 相关的活动,以补充访谈数据。
本研究表明,公民和专业人员对 CE 的定义和体验不同,他们对谁拥有 CE 的所有权也存在差异。在社区主导的倡议和组织主导的倡议中实施的社区参与方法也相应有所不同。此外,公民和专业人员都在寻找让公民更能控制自己社区医疗的有意义的方法。
可以通过首先制定一个关于 CE 应该是什么样子的共同和总体愿景,为组织和社区建立明确的角色和职权范围,并采取积极措施确保 CE 更具包容性和代表性,来改进 CE,以涵盖更难接触到的群体。同时,为了帮助确保这种共同愿景不会进一步加剧公民和专业人员之间的权力失衡,专业人员需要接受成功的 CE 方法培训。