Annika Frahsa , Harvy Joy Liwanag , Cristopher Kobler Betancourt , Aziz Mert Ipekci , Beatrice Minder , Diana Schow
{"title":"COVID-19大流行期间社区参与公共卫生研究和行动的范围审查:探索功利主义和赋权之间的连续性方法","authors":"Annika Frahsa , Harvy Joy Liwanag , Cristopher Kobler Betancourt , Aziz Mert Ipekci , Beatrice Minder , Diana Schow","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Community participation played a crucial role in addressing health inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in reaching marginalized populations and fostering resilience. Amid the wide variation of participatory approaches in community health—from information dissemination to co-decision-making—, there remains a lack of comprehensive analysis on their implementation, impact, and effectiveness. This scoping review synthesizes participatory approaches used during the pandemic, addressing three key gaps: (1) the depth and breadth of participation, (2) the types of communities engaged and the public health issues addressed, and (3) the impact of participation on community health.</div><div>Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, we systematically searched nine bibliographic databases, identifying 20,672 records. After removing duplicates and screening articles based on predefined inclusion criteria, we included 127 studies. Our analysis included mapping participation depth using Arnstein's ladder, categorizing motivations as utilitarian or emancipatory, and identifying the types of communities engaged and the community health issues addressed. We also examined community health outcomes and developed a conceptual heuristic framework to better characterize participatory approaches.</div><div>Based on our findings, we propose eight key recommendations for improving the implementation and reporting of participatory approaches in community health. These include providing clear definitions of community and community health, ensuring transparency in participation levels and phases, elaborating on participatory methods, avoiding (re)stigmatization, and promoting community-driven research and action. By enhancing participatory practice and evaluation, these recommendations can support more equitable, effective, and sustainable community health interventions in pandemic contexts and beyond.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"385 ","pages":"Article 118556"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of community participation in public health research and action during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring approaches on the continuum between utilitarianism and empowerment\",\"authors\":\"Annika Frahsa , Harvy Joy Liwanag , Cristopher Kobler Betancourt , Aziz Mert Ipekci , Beatrice Minder , Diana Schow\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Community participation played a crucial role in addressing health inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in reaching marginalized populations and fostering resilience. Amid the wide variation of participatory approaches in community health—from information dissemination to co-decision-making—, there remains a lack of comprehensive analysis on their implementation, impact, and effectiveness. This scoping review synthesizes participatory approaches used during the pandemic, addressing three key gaps: (1) the depth and breadth of participation, (2) the types of communities engaged and the public health issues addressed, and (3) the impact of participation on community health.</div><div>Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, we systematically searched nine bibliographic databases, identifying 20,672 records. After removing duplicates and screening articles based on predefined inclusion criteria, we included 127 studies. Our analysis included mapping participation depth using Arnstein's ladder, categorizing motivations as utilitarian or emancipatory, and identifying the types of communities engaged and the community health issues addressed. We also examined community health outcomes and developed a conceptual heuristic framework to better characterize participatory approaches.</div><div>Based on our findings, we propose eight key recommendations for improving the implementation and reporting of participatory approaches in community health. These include providing clear definitions of community and community health, ensuring transparency in participation levels and phases, elaborating on participatory methods, avoiding (re)stigmatization, and promoting community-driven research and action. By enhancing participatory practice and evaluation, these recommendations can support more equitable, effective, and sustainable community health interventions in pandemic contexts and beyond.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"385 \",\"pages\":\"Article 118556\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625008871\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625008871","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
A scoping review of community participation in public health research and action during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring approaches on the continuum between utilitarianism and empowerment
Community participation played a crucial role in addressing health inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in reaching marginalized populations and fostering resilience. Amid the wide variation of participatory approaches in community health—from information dissemination to co-decision-making—, there remains a lack of comprehensive analysis on their implementation, impact, and effectiveness. This scoping review synthesizes participatory approaches used during the pandemic, addressing three key gaps: (1) the depth and breadth of participation, (2) the types of communities engaged and the public health issues addressed, and (3) the impact of participation on community health.
Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, we systematically searched nine bibliographic databases, identifying 20,672 records. After removing duplicates and screening articles based on predefined inclusion criteria, we included 127 studies. Our analysis included mapping participation depth using Arnstein's ladder, categorizing motivations as utilitarian or emancipatory, and identifying the types of communities engaged and the community health issues addressed. We also examined community health outcomes and developed a conceptual heuristic framework to better characterize participatory approaches.
Based on our findings, we propose eight key recommendations for improving the implementation and reporting of participatory approaches in community health. These include providing clear definitions of community and community health, ensuring transparency in participation levels and phases, elaborating on participatory methods, avoiding (re)stigmatization, and promoting community-driven research and action. By enhancing participatory practice and evaluation, these recommendations can support more equitable, effective, and sustainable community health interventions in pandemic contexts and beyond.
期刊介绍:
Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.