Skip to main content
Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Community participation in health services development, implementation, and evaluation: A systematic review of empowerment, health, community, and process outcomes

  • Victoria Haldane ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Victoria Haldane, Fiona L. H. Chuah

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore

  • Fiona L. H. Chuah ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Victoria Haldane, Fiona L. H. Chuah

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore

  • Aastha Srivastava,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis

    Affiliation Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore

  • Shweta R. Singh,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis

    Affiliation Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore

  • Gerald C. H. Koh,

    Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore

  • Chia Kee Seng,

    Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore

  • Helena Legido-Quigley

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom



Community participation is widely believed to be beneficial to the development, implementation and evaluation of health services. However, many challenges to successful and sustainable community involvement remain. Importantly, there is little evidence on the effect of community participation in terms of outcomes at both the community and individual level. Our systematic review seeks to examine the evidence on outcomes of community participation in high and upper-middle income countries.

Methods and findings

This review was developed according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included those that involved the community, service users, consumers, households, patients, public and their representatives in the development, implementation, and evaluation of health services, policy or interventions. We searched the following databases from January 2000 to September 2016: Medline, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, and LILACs. We independently screened articles for inclusion, conducted data extraction, and assessed studies for risk of bias. No language restrictions were made. 27,232 records were identified, with 23,468 after removal of duplicates. Following titles and abstracts screening, 49 met the inclusion criteria for this review. A narrative synthesis of the findings was conducted. Outcomes were categorised as process outcomes, community outcomes, health outcomes, empowerment and stakeholder perspectives. Our review reports a breadth of evidence that community involvement has a positive impact on health, particularly when substantiated by strong organisational and community processes. This is in line with the notion that participatory approaches and positive outcomes including community empowerment and health improvements do not occur in a linear progression, but instead consists of complex processes influenced by an array of social and cultural factors.


This review adds to the evidence base supporting the effectiveness of community participation in yielding positive outcomes at the organizational, community and individual level.

Trial registration

Prospero record number: CRD42016048244.


Community participation came to the fore with the 1978 Alma Ata declaration, which framed the community as central to the planning, organizing, operation and control of primary health care [1]. In recent years, community participation has once again emerged as a priority in health globally following the initiation of the new Sustainable Development Goals. In line with the SDGs, integrated people-centered health services are key to achieving universal health coverage and attaining this goal requires participatory approaches [2]. Furthermore, with the rapid increase of chronic disease burden worldwide, intersectoral approaches encompassing community participation and engagement has been identified as key for implementing strategies in health promotion and the prevention and control of chronic diseases [3].

Over the decades, there has been much exploration, development, and debate on ways to conceptualize meaningful community participation in health services[4]. Beyond the use of community participatory approaches to promote the effectiveness of health programs implemented, engaging communities effectively is believed to have a positive impact on social capital, leading to enhanced community empowerment, and ultimately improved health status and reduced health inequalities [5]. However, despite the wide acceptance of community involvement in theory and practice, there still remains many challenges, both structural and practical, to successful implementation [5]. Furthermore, there is little concrete evidence on the effectiveness of community involvement programs, particularly on improvements in intermediate and long-term outcomes, including health related outcomes [6]. Much of the research done on community participation has also focused on low and middle income countries despite evidence of its universal utility in improving health [7]. To address this gap, this systematic review aims to examine the evidence on community involvement and participation from studies that report on program outcomes in high and upper-middle income countries.

Previous systematic reviews of community participation outcomes have focused on mother and child health [2], and rural health [8]. One systematic review explored health and social outcomes of participatory approaches in the United Kingdom [9], and one systematic review of literature between 1966 to 2000 reported on the effects of involving patients in the planning and development of healthcare [10]. To our knowledge, there are no reviews of the existing systematic approaches that examine outcomes of community involvement in health service planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation for a variety of diseases in high and upper-middle income countries. This review seeks to fill this knowledge gap.


This review was developed according to PRISMA guidelines (see S1 Table) [11] and submitted to Prospero at study initiation under record number CRD42016048244. Drawing on the definitions by George et al. (2015)[12], the concept of community and community participation is described in Box 1.

Box 1. Definitions

Community: Communities are defined as constituted by those with a shared social identity; that is of members of the same set of social representations, which are the meanings, symbols, and aspirations through which people make sense of their world.

Community participation: Active group participation or participation of a person as representative of the group in activities where they not only provide ideas but are also involved in the intervention.

Data sources

We developed the search string in accordance with the underlying objective of the study and refined it with inputs from an information specialist. The following databases were searched from January 2000 to September 2016: Medline, Global Health, Embase, Scopus, and LILACs. The full search terms used for Medline are shown in Table 1.

Inclusion criteria.

We included all studies that involved the community, service users, consumers, households, patients, public and their representatives in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of health services, policy, or interventions. These included studies that involved the community in disease prevention, promotion, or healthy living, and/or health service delivery. Studies that involved patients in decision making of personal healthcare decisions only were excluded from our review. We also excluded studies where Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) was used merely to suggest ideas rather than as part of implementation in a community program. For this review, we excluded editorials and theoretical studies but included reports which had a description of the community participation component. We did not impose any language restrictions but limited the search to published literature from high and upper-middle income countries as defined by the World Bank.

Search and retrieval of studies.

Two reviewers (SS and AS) double screened titles and keywords for 20% of the total articles from the search in the databases (kappa coefficient = 0.82). The remaining 80% of the articles were distributed among SS and AS and screened only once due to the high initial Kappa coefficient. Following the title screenings, the abstracts included were double screened (kappa coefficient = 0.84). Any disagreement at this stage was discussed between SS and AS. In the absence of a consensus, opinion was sought from a third reviewer for resolution. Five reviewers (SS, AS, VH, FC, HLQ) conducted the full-text screening. Articles in languages other than English (e.g. French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese) were screened by a reviewer who could read and understand the article. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Only papers that reported outcomes or effects of community participation were included in this review. The details of the studies screened and included at each stage are presented in a flowchart in Fig 1.

Data synthesis.

Two reviewers (VH and FC) conducted data extraction using standardized forms including categories on: (1) study characteristics including study design and setting, (2) type of community involvement described in the paper, and (3) outcomes reported. The two reviewers (VH and FC) met regularly to discuss and resolve any discrepancies or disagreements on the data extraction or interpretation of the studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the findings.

Risk of bias assessment.

Two reviewers (VH and FC) assessed the studies for risk of bias. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess randomized control trials (RCTs) while observational studies were assessed using a proforma with 3 domains: selection bias, information bias, and confounding, then categorised as low, high, or unclear. Qualitative studies were evaluated for quality with an adapted checklist used in a previous series of mixed methods systematic reviews [13, 14] scored for ten core criteria. We classified studies with a score of eight to ten as having an overall low risk of bias, four to seven as having an overall medium risk of bias, and zero to three as having an overall high risk of bias. We did not conduct a risk of bias assessment on case studies; however, we have included these studies in our review as they give insight into the mechanisms of partnerships, inter-organisation collaboration, and stakeholder satisfaction.


27,232 records were identified through database searching. 23,468 articles were screened by title followed by 1,740 abstracts screened for inclusion. The full text of 707 articles was obtained and assessed for eligibility. After screening for reported objectives, 49 articles met eligibility criteria for this review (Fig 1). Due to the heterogeneity in study design, intervention types, participants, and outcomes, we conducted a narrative synthesis of the findings instead of a meta-analysis.

Characteristics of included studies

Of the 49 studies that met inclusion criteria, 22 were quantitative, 14 were qualitative, and 13 were case studies. Of the 22 quantitative studies, 6 were RCTs, 8 were intervention studies, 7 were cohort studies, and 1 was a cross-sectional study. The studies could be categorised into five different disease categories based on the focus of the community participation initiative described. Of the 49 studies, 16 focused on community health in general, 13 involved initiatives that targeted healthy living, 9 focused on non-communicable diseases, 7 studies addressed infectious diseases, and 4 studies were related to environmental health. The description of each disease category and the number of relevant studies are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Categories of community involvement initiatives (n = 49).

Outcome definitions and framework

Reported outcomes were classified as process outcomes, community outcomes, health outcomes, stakeholder perspectives, and empowerment (See Table 3). We define process outcomes as short-term outputs that reflect the effectiveness of collaborative processes and activities over time. Organizational processes are concerned with community-based group achievements, while community processes are linked to process-related changes in the targeted community. We define community outcomes as intermediate social effects that represent changes in community member’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. More extensively, it includes outcomes that reflect impact on social capital, community development, socio-cultural, and environmental improvements. Health outcomes are those that reflect changes in community member’s health status. We also describe those outcomes that deal with larger sociopolitical influences, as well as stakeholder perceptions. Studies also report on empowerment at the community or individual level, as an outcome. Studies that defined empowerment framed it as communities coming together to address a self-identified community problem and create positive change that is self-sustained, contextually appropriate, and fosters knowledge transfer between community members. These studies also point to complicated power relations and structural differences between community members and professionals or policy makers that underpin the challenges in defining and measuring community or individual empowerment (See Table 4).

Table 4. Definitions of empowerment reported in studies included.

Outcomes of community involvement initiatives may be viewed through a hierarchy, as some outcomes necessitate others (See Fig 3); for example in order to deliver a community involvement program that reports robust health outcomes, it is important to have functional and sustainable underlying organisational structures, as well as community awareness and involvement. Throughout this hierarchy, both organisation and community members may report perspectives on the process or outputs and may feel empowered at either a personal or community level.

The number of outcomes reported by disease category and study design can be found in Table 5. Twenty-nine studies reported process outcomes, of which twenty-three reported organisational processes and nine reported community processes; twenty-one studies reported community outcomes; sixteen reported perspectives of stakeholders on either processes or project outcomes; six reported on empowerment and twelve reported health outcomes. Process outcomes, especially organisational processes, were most often reported in studies involving community health (n = 12), while both infectious disease and environmental health category only had one study reporting these outcomes. Empowerment was the least reported across study categories; of 6 studies, 4 were in the community health category. Health outcomes were more often reported in healthy living (n = 4) and non-communicable disease initiatives (n = 5), while community health initiatives reported no health outcomes.

Process outcomes

Study characteristics, along with the findings reported, and the risk of bias assessments for studies that report on process outcomes can be found in Table 6 (See S1 File for table legend for risk of bias).

Table 6. Study characteristics, findings reported and the risk of bias assessments for studies that report on process outcomes (n = 28).

Nine studies presented process outcomes relating to contextually appropriate initiatives and mutually agreeable organizational processes to meet community’s needs [15, 16, 25, 26, 2830, 44, 45]. Four studies reported on how collaborative processes led to the creation of appropriate policies and community-led priority setting [19, 22, 34, 43]. Two studies reported clearer role definition as a process outcome of community involvement in community health initiatives [3, 46] while two studies reported how robust processes enabled the provision of more activities [20, 47]. Yet, not all partnerships showed favorable results, due to conflicting stakeholder views, as well as underestimation of the time and resources required for collaboration [35].

Community outcomes

Study characteristics, along with the findings reported and the risk of bias assessments for studies that report on community outcomes can be found in Table 7 (See S1 File for table legend for risk of bias).

Table 7. Study characteristics, findings reported and the risk of bias assessments for studies that report on community outcomes (n = 20).

Eight studies provided evidence on community outcomes in the form of increased community knowledge and awareness [15, 35, 43, 44, 49, 52, 53, 55]. Two studies involved interventions that focused on community health in general [15, 44], 1 on community mental health [43], 3 on infectious diseases [35, 52, 55], 1 on environmental health [53], and 1 on a healthy living intervention involving a physical activity trial [49]. Five studies reported on community outcomes relating to improved self-efficacy and confidence [22, 27, 46, 52, 54]. Two studies that reported on such outcomes had contextually tailored interventions on HIV and AIDS [52, 54]. Both studies reported positive impact on its target population including increased confidence and personal development among peer educators and sex workers, decreased HIV stigma, reduced proportion of men reporting that they had engaged in unprotected sex, and increased positive attitudes in condom use.

Stakeholder perspectives

Study characteristics, along with the findings reported and the risk of bias assessments for studies that report on stakeholder perspectives can be found in Table 8 (See S1 File for table legend for risk of bias).

Table 8. Study characteristics, findings reported and the risk of bias assessments for studies that report on stakeholder perspectives.

In five studies, participants reported positive experiences or satisfaction with the community participatory initiative [15, 58, 59, 61, 62], three of which involved community-academic partnerships [58, 61, 62]. Six studies reported on stakeholder perspectives that reflected positive community-level outcomes [5759, 6163]. Two of these studies reported greater awareness of the targeted health issue or services among the community, both of which involved community-academic partnerships [59, 62]. Three studies reported perceptions relating to the processes of involving the community, although results were mixed [44, 57, 58]. Two of the studies reported stakeholder satisfaction with service coverage, staff development, enhanced networks, and creation of new alliances [44, 58]. However, another qualitative study that investigated perspectives of a health impact assessment among native participants reported otherwise, highlighting the need to account for a community’s history of colonization and forced assimilation in the community engagement process [57]. At a more fundamental level, community participation has been perceived to have facilitated community ownership and development as reported in two studies [57, 62].


Study characteristics, along with the findings reported and the risk of bias assessments for studies that report on empowerment can be found in Table 9 (See S1 File for table legend for risk of bias).

Table 9. Study characteristics, findings reported and the risk of bias assessments for studies that report on empowerment (n = 7).

Three studies described how participation in a community initiative fostered engagement [28, 42, 53]. Two studies described how greater agency, i.e. the capacity of individuals to act on their own accord, interacted with empowerment [15, 29]. One study involved a volunteer-based community health advisory program that sought to increase access to health services which reported a sense of empowerment among participants after they were given greater control over program direction [29]. The other study, involving a youth advisory board formed through CBPR, reported an improved sense of agency amongst students [15]. One study described specifically how gaining skills through participation led to empowerment. The study involved a community-academic collaboration that led to resident empowerment through skills based training that was included in the CBPR research process[28]. In another study on active participation strategies for environmental solutions, community groups were reportedly mobilized to make changes in their own community, resulting in the strengthening and empowerment of the community [42].

Health outcomes

Study characteristics, along with the findings reported and the risk of bias assessments for studies that report on health outcomes can be found in Table 10 (See S1 File for table legend for risk of bias).

Table 10. Study characteristics, findings reported and the risk of bias assessments for studies that report on health outcomes (n = 12).

The health impact of community participation interventions was the most evident among studies involving non-communicable diseases. All five studies reported positive health outcomes including decreased hospital admissions [25, 65], reduced clinical symptoms [22], improved behavioral risk factors such as exercise [46, 49, 64, 66], improved quality of life[43], and decreased mortality over time [16]. Two studies on infectious diseases reported positive health outcomes in terms of greater community compliance to the prevention and treatment of lymphatic filariasis which was the targeted disease of the community participation program [55], and a lower rate of increased vector density of a dengue control intervention[17]. Two out of 4 studies relating to healthy living reported positive results relating to improvements in obesity rates [20, 46], while the other 2 studies targeting physical activity did not find these interventions effective in promoting health outcomes [49, 64]. Only one study on environmental health reported on health outcomes where the implementation of the local drowning surveillance system resulted in reductions in non-fatal drowning rates, drowning fatality rates and incidence rate ratios of injuries [16].


This review explores reported outcomes of community involvement and participation and presents a conceptual model to frame these outcomes, beginning with a foundation of process outcomes and community outcomes as necessary to achieving robust health outcomes, while recognizing the influence of stakeholder perspectives and empowerment.

Our review highlights the importance of both process and outcomes evaluations when assessing community involvement interventions. Process outcomes, especially those that reflect on organizational processes, are the results of intra- and inter- organizational negotiating and learning, that over time results in “trust” and “authentic” relationships which ultimately drive partnerships forward [66]. Few studies report on the community processes that result from these initiatives, such as increased outreach, volunteerism or other “conversion” of community members into active members. From an organizational perspective, many studies reported on the learning phases wherein organizational relationships are established and built. Partnerships in this phase mostly report process outcomes as they learn ways of working both together and with the community [43]. This learning curve is important in developing contextually appropriate interventions and those studies that invest in this stage report success in program development and implementation [25].

Failing to account for contextual learning can result in failure to work together to achieve goals, and this is especially important in vulnerable populations and those communities with a history of colonization and forced assimilation [55]. This speaks to the international Aboriginal self-determination movement which calls for program development for indigenous people by indigenous people that integrates underlying theoretical and cultural frameworks into applied public health [17]. Past research has shown how community participation interventions have been viewed as an initiative to improve health outcomes rather than a process to implement and support health program to sustain these outcomes [20, 46]. However, our findings highlight that examining community participation as a “process” is equally as important, and furthers the understanding that outcomes could be influenced by shifts in social, economic, and political contexts over time.

Overall, community-level outcomes were the most common measure reported across the studies. Findings from our review demonstrate that successful community outcomes were most evident among interventions that included outreach activities such as: health camps, community fairs, and partnerships with schools and religious groups [49, 64]; targeted interventions that delivered tailored and specific health knowledge [16]; and interventions that encouraged relationship building with the wider community [28, 41, 44]. CBPR was also beneficial in developing trust between community and academic partners through the creation of a level-playing environment where members could decide on health priorities collectively [28, 29, 67]. In another review that examined the effectiveness of community engagement in health intervention planning and delivery, community participation initiatives were reportedly linked to positive gains in social capital, social cohesion, and in capacity building among the community [16, 22]. Furthermore, a systematic review addressing what indigineous Australian clients valued about primary health identified how community participation influences access, acceptability, availability, responsiveness and quality of services, with the potential of increasing utilisation and ultimately improving health outcomes [68]. Another study also identified how increased community participation could also address the social determinants of health outcomes through increased local or Indigenous employment services [69]. In our review however, very few studies reported on such community outcomes, which are inherently more difficult to define and measure given its subjectivity.

In terms of population level outcomes, our findings indicate that there is a problematic reliance on empowerment as an outcome measure of community participation interventions. Some studies report on community empowerment and empowering of participants as a community level improvement resulting from participation in a community project or initiative [67]. Empowerment is perceived as beneficial and a positive outcome of community participation, often constructed through qualitative exploration of participants and residents’ perceptions, but without a robust definition and measurement of impact, caution is required in attributing the outcomes reported to actual community empowerment. Furthermore, care must be taken not to reduce empowerment to a component of a bureaucratic process while conflating these debatable definitions and measures of empowerment to represent tangible power and influence [70]. Empowerment as an outcome requires sustained community engagement, which is dependent on program sustainability. While there may be many barriers to sustainability, the greatest challenges can be political [71].

Findings from our review indicate that the ultimate aim for most community involvement programs is to improve health and wellbeing of a particular community; however, indicators were difficult to obtain and measure. Changes in health status usually require long-term monitoring and may not be measurable over a single program cycle. In our review, health outcomes are most commonly reported for community involvement interventions addressing non-communicable diseases and healthy living, and findings presented are generally mixed. For instance, some healthy living interventions reported no significant effect of physical activity interventions on health outcomes [15, 17, 24, 46, 55, 57] while others reported the contrary [22, 65]. Nonetheless, interventions that are contextually targeted which have specific goals at the outset that are monitored over time seem to have greater success in achieving positive health outcomes [16, 44, 54]. As highlighted in other reviews, identifying that a positive outcome or change is specifically attributable to community participation is a complex task [44]. Community participation initiatives usually do not happen as a direct and linear intervention to improve health, but rather consists of complex processes and interactions [7]. Our review reports promising evidence that community engagement has a positive impact on health, especially when supported by a strong organizational and community foundation.

Despite the variability in interventions, there are some positive community participation examples that provide convincing evidence of benefits as demonstrated by the six RCTs identified in this review, two of which were of high quality given its overall low risk of bias [1719, 4850]. Boivin’s study elucidates that community involvement is central to setting priorities in driving healthcare improvement at the population level [19] while Caprara’s study presents social participation as an effective tool in facilitating environmental management for improved dengue vector control [17]. It should be noted however, that all studies described were context specific, hence the external validity of these studies are inevitably limited. Ultimately, there is ‘no one size fits all’ approach to community participation that will ensure intended positive outcomes and community participation that is tailored to context is fundamental in ensuring the provision of equitable health care and optimization of interventions to improve health [64].

Strengths and limitations

This systematic review on outcomes of community participation in high and upper middle income countries is the first of its kind to be conducted. A strength of this review was the use of a wide range of databases and the inclusion of papers in multiple languages to ensure broad representation. However, majority of the studies identified were conducted in the United States which could be a result of publication bias. It is highly likely that not many real world community participatory initiatives are evaluated robustly according to epidemiological standards, and it is possible that studies with null findings are less likely to be published. Additionally, given the broad scope of our inclusion criteria, the search produced a large amount of literature on community participation for eligibility assessment and synthesis. Nevertheless, prioritizing studies that had the best quality evidence in outcomes reported allowed for the data extraction and synthesis process, and the risk of bias assessment, to be done comprehensively and with rigour.

Implications for research.

Our review shows that while community participation and involvement is well documented from a case study and qualitative perspective, there is a need for more robust program evaluations and studies that measure and report long-term outcomes. Studies were largely descriptive or only had a evaluative component as part of a case study. While descriptive reports provide insight into program successes and operationalisation they would benefit from more robust methodology and reporting to determine stronger causal linkages between intervention components and desired outcomes.

Our review included six RCT studies that serve as positive examples for evaluating community participation programs. However, it must be noted that while RCTs are considered the gold standard in research methodology; difficulties in applying experimental designs at the population level is evident and well documented [7]. A particular challenge will be to account for the multi-faceted health and social dimensions of community participation in drawing definitive linkages and pathways that explain how community participation leads to a desired community or health outcome[6].

Importantly, no studies reported on outcomes relating to costs. Further evaluations are needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of real-world interventions and draw comparisons between the varying approaches of community participation and involvement. Such research is imperative to support evidence-based policy-making by identifying community participation programs that can achieve the greatest health return on investment.

Implications for policy

Evidence garnered from this systematic review presents some of the successes of community participation in yielding positive outcomes at the organizational, community, and individual level in high and middle-income countries. It is a worthwhile endeavour for policymakers to devote resources in enabling community engagement, creating platforms for involvement, and in facilitating successful collaborations or partnerships within the health sector and beyond. Nonetheless, addressing issues of power relations, developing trust with the community, and understanding the political, social, and economic contexts in which initiatives are supported, is imperative in any form of community engagement effort.

Based on the findings of this review, we have developed a new outcomes framework for community participation which policy-makers can utilise to prioritise program outcomes and justify resource allocation in program design and implementation. Consideration of the interplay of social and cultural factors is essential when exploring perspectives of community members on outputs of such initiatives, while empowerment and power relations are key elements that should be taken into account with more robust measurements. As policy-makers consider new and effective ways of planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating community involvement programs, the evidence here can contribute in providing some clarity to the process and supporting the development of evidence based policies.


Community participation is a fundamental element of an equitable and rights-based approach to health that is proven effective in optimizing health interventions for positive public health impact. This review adds to this evidence base supporting the utility of community participation in yielding positive outcomes at the organizational, community, and individual level across a wide range of health domains. Our findings present process and community outcomes as necessary to achieving robust health outcomes. This supports the notion that participatory approaches and health improvements do not happen as a linear progression, but rather consists of complex processes influenced by an array of contextual factors. Overall, it is evident that community involvement is key in priority setting to drive healthcare improvement and that interventions utilizing community involvement can benefit from a contextualizing learning phase whereby organizational relationships and trust can develop. Our review highlights the need for more robust program evaluations of community participation initiatives that measure long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness, in more settings globally.

Supporting information


  1. 1. WHO. Declaration of Alma-Ata in International Conference on Primary Health Care. Alma Ata, USSR: World Health Organisation, 1978.
  2. 2. Marston C, Hinton R, Kean S, Baral S, Ahuja A, Costello A, et al. Community participation for transformative action on women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2016;94(376–382).
  3. 3. Narain JP. Integrating Services for Noncommunicable Diseases Prevention and Control: Use of Primary Health Care Approach. Indian Journal of Community Medicine. 2011;36:67–71.
  4. 4. Rifkin SB. Lessons from community participation in health programmes: a review of the post Alma-Ata experience. International Health. 2009;1(1):31–6. pmid:24036293
  5. 5. Morgan LM. Community participation in health: perpetual allure, persistent challenge. Health Policy and Planning. 2001;16(3):21–230.
  6. 6. Rifkin Susan B. Examining the links between community participation and health outcomes: a review of the literature. Health policy and planning. 2014;29 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii98–ii106. Epub 2014/09/11. pmid:25274645.
  7. 7. Milton B, Anttree P, French B. The impact of community engagement on health and social outcomes: a systematic review. Community Development Journal. 2011;47(316–34).
  8. 8. Preston R, Waugh H, Larkin S, Taylor J. Community participation in rural primary health care: intervention or approach? Australian Journal of Primary Health. 2010;6:4–16.
  9. 9. Evans D, Pilkington P, McEachran M. Rhetoric or reality? A systematic review of the impact of participatory approaches by UK public health units on health and social outcomes. Journal of Public Health. 2010;32:418–26. pmid:20194176
  10. 10. Crawford MJ, Rutter D, Manley C, Weaver T, Bhui K, Fulop N, et al. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ. 2002;325.
  11. 11. Moher D LA, Altman DG, Group PRISMA. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine. 2009;6(7).
  12. 12. George AS, Mehra V, Scott K, Sriram V. Community Participation in Health Systems Research: A Systematic Review Assessing the State of Research, the Nature of Interventions Involved and the Features of Engagement with Communities. PloS One. 2015;10(10):e0141091. pmid:26496124
  13. 13. Marston Alicia Renedo C. R. McGowan , Anayda Portela. Effects of Community Participation on Improving Uptake of Skilled Care for Maternal and Newborn Health: A Systematic Review. Plos One. 2013;8(2).
  14. 14. Prost A, Colbourn T, Seward N. Women’s groups practising participatory learning and action to improve maternal and newborn health in low-resource settings: a systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2013;(381):1736–46.
  15. 15. Ferrera MJ, Sacks TK, Perez M, Nixon JP, Asis D, Coleman WL. Empowering Immigrant Youth in Chicage. Fam Community Health. 2015;38(1):12–21. pmid:25423240
  16. 16. Sansiritaweesook G, Kanato M. Development of the model for local drowning surveillance system in northeastern Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai. 2015;98(Suppl. 6):S1–S9.
  17. 17. Caprara A, Wellington de Oliveira Lima J, Rocha Peixoto AC, Monteiro Vasconcelos Motta C, Soares Nobre JM, Sommerfeld J, et al. Entomological impact and social participation in dengue control: a cluster randomized trial in Fortaleza, Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2015;109:99–105. pmid:25604760
  18. 18. Gloppen KM, Arthur MW, Hawkins JD, Shapiro VB. Sustainability of the Communities That Care prevention system by coalitions participating in the community youth development study. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012;51:259–64. pmid:22921136
  19. 19. Boivin A, Lehoux P, Burgers J, Grol R. What are the key ingredients for effective public involvement in health care improvement and policy decisions? A randomized trial process evaluation. The Milbank Quarterly. 2014;92(2):319–50. pmid:24890250
  20. 20. Hoelscher DM, Springer AE, Ranjit N, Perry CL, Evans AE, Stigler M, et al. Reductions in child obesity among disadvantaged school children with community involvement: The Travis County CATCH trial. Obesity. 2010;18(Supplement 1).
  21. 21. Neto FC, Fiorin AM, Conversani DT, Cesarino MB, Barnosa AAC, Dibo MR, et al. Dengue vector control and community participation in Catanduva, Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Cad Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro. 2003;19(6):1739–49.
  22. 22. Clark NM, Lachance L, Doctor LJ, Gilmore L, Kelly C, Krieger J, et al. Policy and system change and community coalitions: outcomes from Allies Against Asthma. Health Education & Behavior. 2014;41(5):528–38.
  23. 23. Nathan S, Harris E, Kemp L, Harris-Roxas B. Health service staff attitudes to community representatives on committees. Journal of Health Organization and Management. 2006;20(6):551–9. pmid:17168106
  24. 24. Akiyama T, Win T, Maung C, Ray P, Kaji A, Tanabe A, et al. Making schools healthy among Burmese migrants in Thailand. Health Promotion International. 2012;28(2).
  25. 25. Reeve C, Humphreys J, Wakerman J, Carter M, Carroll V, Reeve D. Strengthening primary health care: achieving health gains in a remote region of Australia. MJA. 2015;202(9).
  26. 26. Nelson G, Lomotey J. Quantity and quality of participation and outcomes of participation in mental health consumer-run organizations. Journal of Mental Health. 2006;15(1):63–74.
  27. 27. Litt JS, Reed HL, Tabak RG, Zieff SG, Eyler AA, Lyn R, et al. Active living collaborations in the United States: understanding characteristcs, activities and achievement of environmental and policy change. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2013;10.
  28. 28. Gibbons MC, Illangasekare SL, Smith E, Kub J. A community health initiative: evaluation and early lessons learned. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education and Action. 2016;10(1 Spring):89–101.
  29. 29. Trettin L, Musham C. Using focus groups to design a community health program: what roles should volunteers play? Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 2000;11(4):444–55. pmid:11057059
  30. 30. Carlisle S. Tackling health inequalities and social exclusion through partnership and community engagement? A reality check for policy and practice aspriations from a Social Inclusion Partnership in Scotland. Critical Public Health. 2010;20(1):117–27.
  31. 31. Johnson HH, Bobbitt-Cooke M, Schwarz M, White D. Creative partnerships for community health improvement: a qualitative evaluation of the Healthy Carolinians Community micro-grant project. Health Promotion Practice. 2006;7(2):162–9. pmid:16585138
  32. 32. Kevin Heaton. Community grand rounds: re-engineering community and academic partnerships in health education-a partnership and programmatic evaluation. Progress in Community Health Partnerships. 2014;8(3).
  33. 33. Litt JS, Reed HL, Zieff SG, Tabak RG, Eyler AA, O'Hara Tompkins N, et al. Advancing environmental and policy change through active living collaboratives: compositional and stakeholder engagement correlates of group effectives. J Public Health Management Practice. 2013;19(3):E-Supp, S49–S57.
  34. 34. Rutter D, Manley C, Weaver T, Crawford MJ, Fulop N. Patients or partners? Case studies of user involvement in the planning and delivery of adult mental health services in London. Social Science and Medicine. 2004;58(1973–1984).
  35. 35. Chervin DD, Philliber S, Brindis CD, Chadwick AE, Revels ML, Kamin SL, et al. Community capacity building in CDC's community coalition partnership programs for the prevention of teen pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2005;37:S11–S9. pmid:16115565
  36. 36. von dem Knesebeck Olaf. Evaluation of a community-level health policy intervention. Published in Journal Health policy. 2002;61(1):111–22.
  37. 37. Keene Woods N, Watson-Thompson J, Schober DJ, Fawcett S. An empirical case study of the effects of training and technical assistance on community coalition functioning and sustainability. Health Promotion Practice. 2014;15(5):739–49. pmid:24662898
  38. 38. Bursztyn I. Strategies for changes in primary health care. Cad Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro. 2008;24(10):2227–38.
  39. 39. Orozco-Nunez E, Gonzalez-Block MA, Kageyama-Escobar LM, Hernandez-Prado B. Social participation in health, the experience of Mexican Maternal health. salud pública de méxico. 2009;51(2):104–13.
  40. 40. Baker EA, Wilkerson R, Brennan LK. Identifying the role of community partnerships in creating change to support active living. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2012;43(5S4):S290–S9.
  41. 41. Rapport F, Snooks H, Evans AE, Tee A. 'Getting involved means making a difference?' Insider views on the impact of a 'healthy living' community intervention. Critical Public Health. 2008;18(2):211–24.
  42. 42. Diaz C, Torres Y, De la Cruz A, Alvarez A, Me P, Valero A, et al. An inter-sector participatory strategy in Cuba using an ecosystem approach to prevent dengue transmission at the local level. Cad Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro. 2009;25(59–70).
  43. 43. Barnes M. The same old process? Older people, participation and deliberation. Ageing & Society. 2005;25:245–59.
  44. 44. Heaton K, Smith GR, King K, Watson N, Brown K, Curry G, et al. Community Grand Rounds: Re-engineering community and academic partnerships in health education—a partnership and programmatic evaluation. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education and Action. 2014;8(3):375–85.
  45. 45. von dem Knesebeck O, Joksimovic L, Badura B, Siegrist Johannes. Evaluation of a community-level health policy intervention. Healthy Policy. 2002;61:111–22.
  46. 46. Davison KK, Jurkowski JM, Li K, Kranz S, Lawson HA. A childhood obesity intervention developed by families for families: results from a pilot study. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2013;10(3).
  47. 47. Bursztyn I. Strategies for changes in primary health care. Cad Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro. 2008;24:2227–38.
  48. 48. Ardalan A, Naieni KH, Mahmoodi M, Zanganeh AM, Keshtkar AA, Honarvar MR, et al. Flash flood preparedness in Golestan province of Iran: a community intervention trial. American Journal of Disaster Medicine. 2010;5(4).
  49. 49. Solomon E, Rees T, Ukoumunne OC, Metcalf B, Hillsdon M. The Devon Active Villages Evaluation (DAVE) trial of a community-level physical activity intervention in rural south-west England: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2015;11(94).
  50. 50. Derose KP, Marsh T, Mariscal M, Pina-Cortex S, Cohen DA. Involving community stakeholders to increase park use and physical activity. Preventive Medicine. 2014;64:14–9. pmid:24674853
  51. 51. Yajima S, Takano T, Nakamura K, Watanabe M. Effectiveness of a community leaders' programme to promote healthy lifestyles in Tokyo, Japan. Health Promotion International. 2001;16(3).
  52. 52. Campbell C, Mzaidume Z. Grassroots participation, peer education, and HIV prevention by sex workers in South Africa. American Journal of Public Health. 2001;91:1978–86. pmid:11726380
  53. 53. Setti AFF, Bogus CM. Community participation in an intervention program in environmental protection area. Saúde e Sociedade. 2010;19(4).
  54. 54. Wilson TE, Fraser-White M, Williams KM, Pinto A, Agbetor F, Camilien B, et al. Barbershop Talk With Brothers: Using community-based participatory research to develop and pilot test a program to reduce HIV risk among black heterosexual men. AIDS Education and Prevention. 2014;26(5):383–97. pmid:25299804
  55. 55. King JD, Zielinski-Gutierrez , Pa'au M, Lammie P. Improving community participation to eliminate lymphatic filariasis in American Samoa. Acta Tropica. 2011;120S:S48–S54.
  56. 56. Abbema EA, Van Assema P, Kok GJ, De Leeuw E, De Vries NK. Effect evaluation of a comprehensive community intervention aimed at reducing socioeconomic health inequalities in the Netherlands. Health Promotion International. 2004;19(2).
  57. 57. Cargo MD, Delormier T, Levesque L, McComber AM, Macaulay AC. Community capacity as an "Inside Job": Evolution of perceived ownership within a university-Aboriginal community partnership. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2011;26(2).
  58. 58. Ndirangu M, Yadrick K, Bogle ML, Graham-Kresge S. Community-Academia partnerships to promote nutrition in the Lower Mississippi Delta: Community members' perceptions of effectiveness, barriers and factors related to success. Health Promotion Practice. 2008;9(3):237–45. pmid:18319444
  59. 59. Derges J, Chow A, Lynch R, Jain S, Phillips G, Petticrew M, et al. 'Well London' and the benefits of participation: results of a qualitative study nested in a cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e003596. pmid:24694622
  60. 60. Lynne Kennedy. Benefits arising from lay involvement in community-based public health initiatives: The experience from community nutrition. Perspectives in Public Health. 2010;130(4):165–72.
  61. 61. Mason M, Zaganjor H, Bozlak CT, Lammel-Harmon C, Comez-Feliciano L, Becker AB. Working with community partners to implement and evaluate the Chicage Park District's 100% healther snack vending initiative. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2015;11(E135).
  62. 62. Basu Roy U, Michel T, Carpenter A, Lounsbury DW, Sabino E, Jurow Stevenson A, et al. Community-led cancer action councils in Queens, New York: Process evaluation of an innovative partnerships with the Queens Library System. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2014;11.
  63. 63. Kennedy L. Benefits arising from lay involvement in community-based public health initiatives: The experience from community nutrition. Perspectives in Public Health. 2010;130(4):165–72.
  64. 64. Sharpe EK, Forrester S, Mandigo J. Engaging community providers to create more active after-school environments: results from the Ontario CATCH Kids Club implementation project. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2011;8(Suppl 1):S26–S31.
  65. 65. Clark NM, Lachance L, Benedict B, Doctor LJ, Gilmore L, Kelly C, et al. Improvements in health care use associated with community coalitions: long-term results of the Allies Against Asthma initiative. American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103(6):1124–7. pmid:23597384
  66. 66. Oba N, McCaffrey R, Choonhapran P, Chutug P, Rueangram S. Development of a community participation program for diabetes mellitus prevention in a primary care unit, Thailand. Nursing & Health Sciences. 2011;13:352–9.
  67. 67. Jones J, Nix NA, Snyder EH. Local perspectives of the ability of HIA stakeholder engagement to capture and reflect factors that impact Alaska Native health. International Journal of Circumpolar Health. 2014;73(24411).
  68. 68. Gomersall J. S., Gibson O., Dwyer J., O'Donnell K., Stephenson M., Carter D., et al. What Indigenous Australian clients value about primary health care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 2017;41(4):417–23. Epub 2017/07/18. pmid:28712137.
  69. 69. Toby Freeman, Fran Baum, Angela Lawless, Ronald Labonté, David Sanders, John Boffa, et al. Case Study of an Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Service in Australia: Universal, Rights-Based, Publicly Funded Comprehensive Primary Health Care in Action. Health and human rights. 2016;18(2):93–108. pmid:28559679.
  70. 70. Chino M, DeBruyn L. Building True Capacity: Indigenous models for indigenous communities. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(4):596–9. pmid:16449598
  71. 71. Rifkin S. B. Examining the links between community participation and health outcomes: a review of the literature. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29 Suppl 2:ii98–106. pmid:25274645; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4202913.