Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 May 6;22(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01139-1.
Health is increasingly affected by multiple types of crises. Community engagement is recognised as being a critical element in successful crisis response, and a number of conceptual frameworks and global guideline documents have been produced. However, little is known about the usefulness of such documents and whether they contain sufficient information to guide effective community engagement in crisis response. We undertake a scoping review to examine the usefulness of conceptual literature and official guidelines on community engagement in crisis response using a realist-informed analysis [exploring contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes(CMOs)]. Specifically, we assess the extent to which sufficient detail is provided on specific health crisis contexts, the range of mechanisms (actions) that are developed and employed to engage communities in crisis response and the outcomes achieved. We also consider the extent of analysis of interactions between the mechanisms and contexts which can explain whether successful outcomes are achieved or not.
We retained 30 documents from a total of 10,780 initially identified. Our analysis found that available evidence on context, mechanism and outcomes on community engagement in crisis response, or some of their elements, was promising, but few documents provided details on all three and even fewer were able to show evidence of the interactions between these categories, thus leaving gaps in understanding how to successfully engage communities in crisis response to secure impactful outcomes. There is evidence that involving community members in all the steps of response increases community resilience and helps to build trust. Consistent communication with the communities in time of crisis is the key for effective responses and helps to improve health indicators by avoiding preventable deaths.
Our analysis confirms the complexity of successful community engagement and the need for strategies that help to deal with this complexity to achieve good health outcomes. Further primary research is needed to answer questions of how and why specific mechanisms, in particular contexts, can lead to positive outcomes, including what works and what does not work and how to measure these processes.
健康越来越受到多种类型危机的影响。社区参与被认为是成功应对危机的关键要素,已经制定了一些概念框架和全球准则文件。然而,对于这些文件的实用性以及它们是否包含足够的信息来指导有效的社区参与危机应对,知之甚少。我们进行了范围审查,使用基于现实主义的分析[探索背景、机制和结果(CMO)]来检查关于社区参与危机应对的概念文献和官方指南的实用性。具体来说,我们评估了对特定卫生危机背景、为参与危机应对而制定和采用的各种机制(行动)以及所取得的成果提供了足够详细信息的程度。我们还考虑了对机制和背景之间相互作用的分析程度,这些相互作用可以解释是否实现了成功的结果。
我们从最初确定的 10780 篇中保留了 30 篇文献。我们的分析发现,关于社区参与危机应对的背景、机制和结果或其某些要素的现有证据是有希望的,但很少有文件详细介绍了所有这三个方面,甚至更少的文件能够展示这些类别之间相互作用的证据,因此在理解如何成功地让社区参与危机应对以确保产生有影响力的结果方面存在差距。有证据表明,让社区成员参与应对的所有步骤都可以增强社区的恢复能力并有助于建立信任。在危机时期与社区保持一致的沟通是有效应对的关键,有助于通过避免可预防的死亡来改善健康指标。
我们的分析证实了成功的社区参与的复杂性,以及需要有策略来帮助应对这种复杂性,以实现良好的健康结果。需要进一步进行初级研究,以回答特定机制在特定背景下如何以及为什么能够导致积极结果的问题,包括哪些有效哪些无效以及如何衡量这些过程。