Background and aims: This paper explores contemporary issues around community-based health promotion in the light of international health policies reaffirming the central role of community action within broader efforts to achieve health equity. Adopting a system-level approach poses challenges for current health promotion practice and evaluation, particularly where there is a shift in emphasis from small-scale community health projects towards mainstream community programmes, capable of engaging widely across diverse populations. Methods: Drawing on research with community members carried out by the Centre for Health Promotion Research, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK, the paper re-examines assumptions about the nature of interventions within community settings, and what participation means from a lay perspective. Key research issues for community-based health promotion are highlighted. Conclusions: The paper concludes by proposing that community-based interventions need to be reframed, if the dual challenges of citizen involvement and evidence based practice are to be met.
HeritageZDoorisM. Community participation and empowerment in Healthy Cities. Health Promot Int2009;24:45–55.
2.
BiddleSSeymourM. Healthy neighbourhoods and communities: policy and practice. In: ScrivenAHodginsM (eds). Health Promotion Settings: Principles and Practice. London: Sage, 2012, pp. 92–109.
3.
World Health Organization. Rio Political Declaration on Social Determinants of Health. World Conference on Social Determinants of Health, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil2011.
4.
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Health 2020: a European policy framework supporting action across government and society for health and well-being. Copenhagen2012.
5.
KickbuschIGleicherD. Governance for Health in the 21st Century. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2012.
6.
WallersteinN. Empowerment to reduce health disparities. Scand J Public Health2002;30: 72–7.
7.
World Health Organization. Community participation in local health and sustainable development. Approaches and techniques. European Sustainable Development and Health Series No 4. Geneva: WHO regional Office for Europe, 2002.
8.
FraserH. Four different approaches to community participation. Commun Dev J2005;40:286–300.
9.
FremeauxI. New Labour’s appropriation of the concept of community: a critique. Commun Dev J2005;40:265–74.
10.
FriedliL. Mental Health, Resilience and Inequalities. Denmark: World Health Organization Europe, 2009.
11.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Community Engagement to Improve Health. NICE public health guidance 9. London: NICE, 2008.
12.
CornwallA. Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices. Commun Dev J2008;43:269–83.
13.
KeglerMCPainterJETwissJM. Evaluation findings on community participation in the California Healthy Cities and Communities program. Health Promot Int2009;24:300–10.
14.
World Health Organization. Community Health Workers: What Do We Know about Them. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007.
15.
WallersteinNDuranB. Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promot Pract2006;7:312–23.
16.
HunterDJMarksLSmithKE. The Public Health System in England. Bristol: The Policy Press, 2010.
17.
TrickettEJBeehlerSDeutschC. Advancing the science of community-level interventions. Am J Public Health2011;101:1410–9.
18.
SouthJWhiteJGamsuM. People-centred Public Health. Bristol: The Policy Press, 2013.
19.
de LeeuwE. Do healthy cities work? A logic of method for assessing impact and outcome of healthy cities. J Urban Health2012;89:217–31.
20.
RychetnikLFrommerMHawePShiellA. Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Commun Health2002;56:119–27.
21.
HayesMManson WillmsS. Healthy community indicators: the perils of the search and the paucity of the find. Health Promot Int1990;5:161–6.
22.
SouthJMeahABranneyP. “Think differently and be prepared to demonstrate trust”: findings from public hearings, England, on supporting lay people in public health roles. Health Promot Int2011;27:284–94.
WoodallJWhiteJSouthJ. Improving health and well-being through community health champions: a thematic evaluation of a programme in Yorkshire and Humber. Perspect Public Health2013;133:96–103.
WhiteJSouthJWoodallJKinsellaK. Altogether Better Thematic Evaluation- Community Health Champions and Empowerment. Leeds: Centre for Health Promotion, Leeds Metropolitan University, 2010.
27.
KeglerMCNortonBLAronsonRE. Strengthening community leadership: evaluation findings from the California Healthy Cities and Communities Program. Health Promot Pract2008;9:170–9.
28.
RhodesSDFoleyKLZometaCS. Lay health advisor interventions among Hispanics/Latinos a qualitative systematic review. Am J Prev Med2007;33:418–27.
29.
SouthJGiuntoliGKinsellaK. An evaluation of the Walking for Wellness project and the befriender role. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 118. Natural England, 2013.
30.
SouthJKinsellaKMeahA. Lay perspectives on lay health worker roles, boundaries and participation within three UK community-based health promotion projectsHealth Educ Res2012;27:656–70.
31.
EngEParkerEHarlanC. Lay health advisor intervention strategies: a continuum from natural helping to paraprofessional helping. Health Educ Behav1997;24:413–7.
32.
FootJHopkinsT. A glass half-full: how an asset approach can improve community health and well-being. Improvement and Development Agency Healthy Communities Team, 2010.
