Dataset Information

Community engagement interventions for communicable disease control in low- and lower- middle-income countries: evidence from a review of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Community engagement (CE) interventions include a range of approaches to involve communities in the improvement of their health and wellbeing. Working with communities defined by location or some other shared interest, these interventions may be important in assisting equity and reach of communicable disease control (CDC) in low and lower-middle income countries (LLMIC). We conducted an umbrella review to identify approaches to CE in communicable disease control, effectiveness of these approaches, mechanisms and factors influencing success. METHODS:We included systematic reviews that: i) focussed on CE interventions; ii) involved adult community members; iii) included outcomes relevant to communicable diseases in LLMIC; iv) were written in English. Quantitative results were extracted and synthesised narratively. A qualitative synthesis process enabled identification of mechanisms of effect and influencing factors. We followed guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute, assessed quality with the DARE tool and reported according to standard systematic review methodology. RESULTS:Thirteen systematic reviews of medium-to-high quality were identified between June and July 2017. Reviews covered the following outcomes: HIV and STIs (6); malaria (2); TB (1); child and maternal health (3) and mixed (1). Approaches included: CE through peer education and community health workers, community empowerment interventions and more general community participation or mobilisation. Techniques included sensitisation with the community and involvement in the identification of resources, intervention development and delivery. Evidence of effectiveness of CE on health outcomes was mixed and quality of primary studies variable. We found: i) significantly reduced neonatal mortality following women's participatory learning and action groups; ii) significant reductions in HIV and other STIs with empowerment and mobilisation interventions with marginalised groups; iii) significant reductions in malaria incidence or prevalence in a small number of primary studies; iv) significant reductions in infant diarrhoea following community health worker interventions. Mechanisms of impact commonly occurred through social and behavioural processes, particularly: changing social norms, increasing social cohesion and social capacity. Factors influencing effectiveness of CE interventions included extent of population coverage, shared leadership and community control over outcomes. CONCLUSION:Community engagement interventions may be effective in supporting CDC in LLMIC. Careful design of CE interventions appropriate to context, disease and community is vital.

SUBMITTER: Questa K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7137248 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Community engagement interventions for communicable disease control in low- and lower- middle-income countries: evidence from a review of systematic reviews.

Questa K K Das M M King R R Everitt M M Rassi C C Cartwright C C Ferdous T T Barua D D Putnis N N Snell A C AC Huque R R Newell J J Elsey H H

International journal for equity in health 20200406 1

<h4>Background</h4>Community engagement (CE) interventions include a range of approaches to involve communities in the improvement of their health and wellbeing. Working with communities defined by location or some other shared interest, these interventions may be important in assisting equity and reach of communicable disease control (CDC) in low and lower-middle income countries (LLMIC). We conducted an umbrella review to identify approaches to CE in communicable disease control, effectiveness ...[more]

PMID: 32252778

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo support evidence informed decision-making, we systematically examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community engagement interventions on routine childhood immunisation outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and identify contextual, design and implementation features associated with effectiveness.DesignMixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources21 databases of academic and grey literature and 12 additional websites were searched in May 2019 and May 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included experimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations of community engagement interventions considering outcomes related to routine child immunisation in LMICs. No language, publication type, or date restrictions were imposed.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent researchers extracted summary data from published reports and appraised quantitative risk of bias using adapted Cochrane tools. Random effects meta-analysis was used to examine effects on the primary outcome, full immunisation coverage.ResultsOur search identified over 43 000 studies and 61 were eligible for analysis. The average pooled effect of community engagement interventions on full immunisation coverage was standardised mean difference 0.14 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.23, I2=94.46). The most common source of risk to the quality of evidence (risk of bias) was outcome reporting bias: most studies used caregiver-reported measures of vaccinations received by a child in the absence or incompleteness of immunisation cards. Reasons consistently cited for intervention success include appropriate intervention design, including building in community engagement features; addressing common contextual barriers of immunisation and leveraging facilitators; and accounting for existing implementation constraints. The median intervention cost per treated child per vaccine dose (excluding the cost of vaccines) to increase absolute immunisation coverage by one percent was US$3.68.ConclusionCommunity engagement interventions are successful in improving outcomes related to routine child immunisation. The findings are robust to exclusion of studies assessed as high risk of bias.

Project description:BackgroundNon-communicable diseases are the leading global cause of death and disproportionately afflict those living in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). The association between socioeconomic status and non-communicable disease behavioural risk factors is well established in high-income countries, but it is not clear how behavioural risk factors are distributed within LLMICs. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the association between socioeconomic status and harmful use of alcohol, tobacco use, unhealthy diets, and physical inactivity within LLMICs.MethodsWe searched 13 electronic databases, including Embase and MEDLINE, grey literature, and reference lists for primary research published between Jan 1, 1990, and June 30, 2015. We included studies from LLMICs presenting data on multiple measures of socioeconomic status and tobacco use, alcohol use, diet, and physical activity. No age or language restrictions were applied. We excluded studies that did not allow comparison between more or less advantaged groups. We used a piloted version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group data collection checklist to extract relevant data at the household and individual level from the included full text studies including study type, methods, outcomes, and results. Due to high heterogeneity, we used a narrative approach for data synthesis. We used descriptive statistics to assess whether the prevalence of each risk factor varied significantly between members of different socioeconomic groups. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015026604.FindingsAfter reviewing 4242 records, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria, representing 2 135 314 individuals older than 10 years from 39 LLMICs. Low socioeconomic groups were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of tobacco and alcohol use than did high socioeconomic groups. These groups also consumed less fruit, vegetables, fish, and fibre than those of high socioeconomic status. High socioeconomic groups were found to be less physically active and consume more fats, salt, and processed food than individuals of low socioeconomic status. While the included studies presented clear patterns for tobacco use and physical activity, heterogeneity between dietary outcome measures and a paucity of evidence around harmful alcohol use limit the certainty of these findings.InterpretationDespite significant heterogeneity in exposure and outcome measures, clear evidence shows that the burden of behavioural risk factors is affected by socioeconomic position within LLMICs. Governments seeking to meet Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3.4-reducing premature non-communicable disease mortality by a third by 2030-should leverage their development budgets to address the poverty-health nexus in these settings. Our findings also have significance for health workers serving these populations and policy makers tasked with preventing and controlling the rise of non-communicable diseases.FundingWHO.

Project description:Immunisation is one of the most cost-effective interventions to prevent and control life-threatening infectious diseases. Nonetheless, rates of routine vaccination of children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are strikingly low or stagnant. In 2019, an estimated 19.7 million infants did not receive routine immunisations. Community engagement interventions are increasingly being emphasised in international and national policy frameworks as a means to improve immunisation coverage and reach marginalised communities. This systematic review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community engagement interventions on outcomes related to childhood immunisation in LMICs and identifies contextual, design and implementation features that may be associated with effectiveness. We identified 61 quantitative and mixed methods impact evaluations and 47 associated qualitative studies related to community engagement interventions for inclusion in the reteview. For cost-effectiveness analysis 14 of the 61 studies had the needed combination of cost and effectiveness data. The 61 included impact evaluations were concentrated in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa and spread across 19 LMICs. The review found that community engagement interventions had a small but significant, positive effect on all primary immunisation outcomes related to coverage and their timeliness. The findings are robust to exclusion of studies assessed as high risk of bias. Qualitative evidence indicates appropriate intervention design, including building in community engagement features; addressing common contextual barriers of immunisation and leveraging facilitators; and accounting for existing implementation constraints and practicalities on the ground are consistently cited as reasons for intervention success. Among the studies for which we were able to calculate cost-effectiveness, we find that the median non-vaccine cost per dose of intervention to increase immunisation coverage by 1% was US $3.68. Given the broad scope of the review in terms of interventions and outcomes, there is significant variation in findings. Among the various types of community engagement interventions, those that involve creation of community buy-in or development of new cadres of community-based structures were found to have consistent positive effect on more primary vaccination coverage outcomes than if the engagement is limited to the design or delivery of an intervention or is a combination of the various types. The evidence base for sub-group analysis for female children was sparse (only two studies) and the effect on coverage of both full immunisation and third dose of diphtheria pertussis tetanus for this group was insignificant.

Project description:Action is urgently needed to curb the rising rates of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and reduce the resulting social and economic burdens. There is global evidence about the most cost-effective interventions for addressing the main NCD risk factors such as tobacco use, unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, and alcohol misuse. However, it is unknown how much research is focused on informing the local adoption and implementation of these interventions.To assess the degree of research activity on NCD priority interventions in LMICs by using bibliometric analysis to quantify the number of relevant peer-reviewed scientific publications.A multidisciplinary, multi-lingual journal database was searched for articles on NCD priority interventions. The interventions examined emphasise population-wide, policy, regulation, and legislation approaches. The publication timeframe searched was the year 2000-2011. Of the 11,211 articles yielded, 525 met the inclusion criteria.Over the 12-year period, the number of articles published increased overall but differed substantially between regions: Latin America & Caribbean had the highest (127) and Middle East & North Africa had the lowest (11). Of the risk factor groups, 'tobacco control' led in publications, with 'healthy diets and physical activity' and 'reducing harmful alcohol use' in second and third place. Though half the publications had a first author from a high-income country institutional affiliation, developing country authorship had increased in recent years.While rising global attention to NCDs has likely produced an increase in peer-reviewed publications on NCDs in LMICs, publication rates directly related to cost-effective interventions are still very low, suggesting either limited local research activity or limited opportunities for LMIC researchers to publish on these issues. More research is needed on high-priority interventions and research funders should re-examine if intervention research is enough of a funding priority.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a multitude of systematic reviews of interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, most reviews seem to be based on research conducted in High-Income Countries (HIC). Thus, summary findings may not directly apply to Lower Middle-Income Countries (LMIC). Therefore, we conducted a Meta-Review analyzing systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions for target outcomes in children and adolescents with ASD to find out whether there are differences in effectiveness between HIC and LMIC and which interventions can be considered evidence-based in LMIC.MethodsElectronic databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane database of systematic reviews) were searched for reviews on interventions for ASD in children and adolescents from January 2011 through December 2021, which included studies not coming from HIC. Systematic reviews with qualitative and quantitative syntheses of findings were included. Two investigators independently assessed studies against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria and extracted relevant data including quality and evidence assessments. Evidence for different types of interventions in HIC vs. LMIC was planned to be compared, but none of the reviews assessed potential differences. Therefore, a narrative review of the studies from LMIC was conducted including an assessment of quality and evidence.ResultsThirty-five reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Eleven considered findings from HIC and LMIC. Sixty-nine percent included studies with various research designs; 63% provided a qualitative synthesis of findings; 77% percent assessed the quality of studies; 43% systematically assessed the level of evidence across studies. No review compared evidence from HIC and LMIC. A review of the studies from LMIC found some promising results, but the evidence was not sufficient due to a small number of studies, sometimes poor quality, and small sample sizes.ConclusionSystematic reviews on interventions for children and adolescents with ASD did not look for potential differences in the effectiveness of interventions in HIC and LMIC. Overall, there is very little evidence from LMIC. None of the interventions can be considered evidence-based in LMIC. Hence, additional research and mutually agreed methodological standards are needed to provide a more secure basis for evidence-based treatments in LMIC trying to establish evidence-based practices.

Dataset Information

Community engagement interventions for communicable disease control in low- and lower- middle-income countries: evidence from a review of systematic reviews.

Publications

Community engagement interventions for communicable disease control in low- and lower- middle-income countries: evidence from a review of systematic reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets