Marion W Carter1, Michelle L Tregear2, Christina R Lachance3. 1. Division of Reproductive Health, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: MCarter1@cdc.gov. 2. Manila Consulting Group, Inc., McLean, Virginia. 3. Office of Population Affairs, U.S. DHHS, Rockville, Maryland.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Community engagement may include activities that involve community members in the design, implementation, and evaluation of services. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on this kind of community engagement in U.S. family planning programs, including its effects on various health outcomes, its perceived value, and the barriers and facilitators to implementation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Using an analytic approach drawn from U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, multiple databases were searched for articles published from 1985 through February 2011 that described studies about community engagement related to family planning. In 2011, relevant articles were reviewed, summarized, and assessed for potential bias using a standardized abstraction process. An updated, targeted review for the 2011-2014 period was conducted in early 2015. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eleven papers related to family planning were included. All were qualitative, descriptive, and at high risk for bias. Engagement strategies involved various methods for developing educational materials, program development, or program evaluation. All studies reported benefits to community engagement, such as more-appropriate educational materials or more community support for programs. Barriers to engagement included the substantial time and resources required. Four more articles were identified in the targeted, additional search. CONCLUSIONS: Community engagement is described as beneficial across the included studies, but the body of evidence for community engagement in family planning is relatively small. Given the high value ascribed to community engagement, more research and documentation of the various approaches taken and their relative strengths and weaknesses are needed. Published by Elsevier Inc.
CONTEXT: Community engagement may include activities that involve community members in the design, implementation, and evaluation of services. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on this kind of community engagement in U.S. family planning programs, including its effects on various health outcomes, its perceived value, and the barriers and facilitators to implementation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Using an analytic approach drawn from U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, multiple databases were searched for articles published from 1985 through February 2011 that described studies about community engagement related to family planning. In 2011, relevant articles were reviewed, summarized, and assessed for potential bias using a standardized abstraction process. An updated, targeted review for the 2011-2014 period was conducted in early 2015. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eleven papers related to family planning were included. All were qualitative, descriptive, and at high risk for bias. Engagement strategies involved various methods for developing educational materials, program development, or program evaluation. All studies reported benefits to community engagement, such as more-appropriate educational materials or more community support for programs. Barriers to engagement included the substantial time and resources required. Four more articles were identified in the targeted, additional search. CONCLUSIONS: Community engagement is described as beneficial across the included studies, but the body of evidence for community engagement in family planning is relatively small. Given the high value ascribed to community engagement, more research and documentation of the various approaches taken and their relative strengths and weaknesses are needed. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Anjana E Sharma; Brittni N Frederiksen; Nikita M Malcolm; Julia M Rollison; Marion W Carter Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: John Oetzel; Nina Scott; Maui Hudson; Bridgette Masters-Awatere; Moana Rarere; Jeff Foote; Angela Beaton; Terry Ehau Journal: Global Health Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.185
Authors: F Hoekstra; K J Mrklas; M Khan; R C McKay; M Vis-Dunbar; K M Sibley; T Nguyen; I D Graham; H L Gainforth Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2020-05-25