↓ Skip to main content

Community coalition-driven interventions to reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minority populations

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
452 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Community coalition-driven interventions to reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minority populations
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009905.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurie M Anderson, Kathryn L Adeney, Carolynne Shinn, Sarah Safranek, Joyce Buckner-Brown, L Kendall Krause

Abstract

Racial and ethnic disparities in health status are pervasive at all stages of the life cycle. One approach to reducing health disparities involves mobilizing community coalitions that include representatives of target populations to plan and implement interventions for community level change. A systematic examination of coalition-led interventions is needed to inform decision making about the use of community coalition models. To assess effects of community coalition-driven interventions in improving health status or reducing health disparities among racial and ethnic minority populations. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Dissertation Abstracts, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (from January 1990 through September 30, 2013), and Global Health Library (from January 1990 through March 31, 2014). Cluster-randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and prospective controlled cohort studies. Only studies of community coalitions with at least one racial or ethnic minority group representing the target population and at least two community public or private organizations are included. Major outcomes of interest are direct measures of health status, as well as lifestyle factors when evidence indicates that these have an effect on the direct measures performed. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each study. Fifty-eight community coalition-driven intervention studies were included. No study was considered to be at low risk of bias. Behavioral change outcomes and health status change outcomes were analyzed separately. Outcomes are grouped by intervention type. Pooled effects across intervention types are not presented because the diverse community coalition-led intervention studies did not examine the same constructs or relationships, and they used dissimilar methodological designs. Broad-scale community system level change strategies led to little or no difference in measures of health behavior or health status (very low-certainty evidence). Broad health and social care system level strategies leds to small beneficial changes in measures of health behavior or health status in large samples of community residents (very low-certainty evidence). Lay community health outreach worker interventions led to beneficial changes in health behavior measures of moderate magnitude in large samples of community residents (very low-certainty evidence). Lay community health outreach worker interventions may lead to beneficial changes in health status measures in large samples of community residents; however, results were not consistent across studies (low-certainty evidence). Group-based health education led by professional staff resulted in moderate improvement in measures of health behavior (very low-certainty evidence) or health status (low-certainty evidence). Adverse outcomes of community coalition-led interventions were not reported. Coalition-led interventions are characterized by connection of multi-sectoral networks of health and human service providers with ethnic and racial minority communities. These interventions benefit a diverse range of individual health outcomes and behaviors, as well as health and social care delivery systems. Evidence in this review shows that interventions led by community coalitions may connect health and human service providers with ethnic and racial minority communities in ways that benefit individual health outcomes and behaviors, as well as care delivery systems. However, because information on characteristics of the coalitions themselves is insufficient, evidence does not provide an explanation for the underlying mechanisms of beneficial effects. Thus, a definitive answer as to whether a coalition-led intervention adds extra value to the types of community engagement intervention strategies described in this review remains unattainable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 452 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 446 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 90 20%
Researcher 64 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 13%
Student > Bachelor 39 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 7%
Other 92 20%
Unknown 78 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 123 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 81 18%
Social Sciences 62 14%
Psychology 33 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Other 46 10%
Unknown 97 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,028,563
of 14,563,510 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,005
of 11,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,817
of 194,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#83
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,563,510 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.