Tracking the Development of Community Engagement Over Time: Realist Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: A growing interest in engaging communities in the development of health care services and communities has not automatically led to progress or consensus as to how to engage communities successfully, despite the evidence base showing how to leverage enablers and alleviate barriers. OBJECTIVE: To bridge the gap between the evidence base and which community engagement (CE) approaches have actually been applied in practice over time, this study aims to investigate how CE approaches have changed over the past 4 years in 6 different regions in the Netherlands and citizens' and professionals' experiences underlying these changes. METHODS: For the last stage of a multiple case study following the development of CE approaches in 6 different regions in the Netherlands, a realist qualitative case study was conducted. To investigate how CE approaches had changed over the past 4 years, data from the entire 4 years of the study were used, including documents, interview transcripts, and observations. To examine citizens' and professionals' experiences underlying these changes, new interviews were conducted. The latest interview results were discussed with a panel to ensure the results had face validity. RESULTS: The regions had implemented different types of CE approaches over the past 4 years and were adapting these approaches over time. Many of the (remaining) approaches may be operating on a smaller scale. The study identified the following overarching themes along which CE had been adapted: fewer region-wide approaches and more community-focused approaches, more focus on building relationships with (already engaged) citizens and community-led initiatives, and more focus on practical and tangible health promotion and social cohesion activities and less focus on complex "abstract" programs. The study identified a further 4 overarching themes highlighting citizens' and professionals' experiences underlying these changes in the CE approaches: a lack of engagement environment, need for facilitative leadership from organizations, need for a clear and shared vision underscoring the importance of CE, and misalignment between citizens' and professionals' perspectives and motivations for CE. All participants had experienced the engagement environment as insufficient. To support CE, professionals experienced the need to develop and receive more facilitative leadership and to develop approaches better equipped to involve citizens in the decision-making process. Citizens experienced the need to better align citizens' and professionals' motivations and aims for CE approaches and to receive longer-term financial support for their community-led initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that CE has not yet been embedded within organizational cultures. This has arguably meant that the (remaining) CE approaches are operating on a smaller scale. To enable the further development of CE approaches, an investment in the engagement environment and a shared vision is required. Only then could CE within the regions move beyond the more seemingly smaller-scale CE approaches.

The public's considerations about implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions to manage a novel COVID-19 epidemic.

In the future, new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus might emerge and cause outbreaks. If this occurs, the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) can be reconsidered. Consideration of the potential benefits and harms of implementing NPIs, and ultimately deciding about implementing NPIs, is currently mainly executed by experts and governments. However, general literature on public engagement suggests that integrating public perspectives into decision-making can enhance the quality of decisions and foster greater public understanding of them. In this study, a deliberative mini-public was conducted to integrate this public perspective. The aim was to elicit public considerations regarding non-pharmaceutical interventions by asking a diverse group of citizens to participate as decision-makers and convene, learn and deliberate about implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions during a hypothetical outbreak of a new SARS-CoV-2 variant. Participants emphasized the importance of early implementation during the outbreak, to prevent exceeding healthcare capacity, long-term mental health issues, educational deficits, and bankruptcies. Additionally, participants stressed taking public support into account, and shared ideas on maintaining support. Furthermore, participants wanted to give citizens personal responsibility and freedom in making their own assessment regarding adherence to interventions and how much risk of infection they would be willing to accept. Participants also expressed the need for the government to adopt a learning attitude towards improvements in pandemic response, and to generate more focus on long-term strategies. The deliberative mini-public, revealed public considerations that reflected public values and needs. These considerations might be helpful in better aligning epidemic management policies with public perspectives. Regarding the deliberative mini-public, uncertainties remain about the design and impact on a bigger scale.

Voices of society: the emergence of civil-society practices aiming to engage in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public groups mobilised themselves in civil-society engagement practices (CSEPs) aiming to improve or suggest alternative epidemic management. This study explores the motivation to establish CSEPs and their perceived contributions to epidemic management, to gain insight whether integrating views of CSEPs could add value. A systematic online search was executed to identify CSEPs focused on COVID-19 management between January 2020 and January 2022 in the Netherlands. In order to create a comprehensible overview of the identified CSEPs, relevant characteristics were gathered and mapped, for example, local or national scope, subject of action and goals. A selection of CSEPs was interviewed between April and June 2022 to study their motivators to start the CSEPs and perceived contributions to management. The search resulted in the identification of 22 CSEPs, of which members of 14 CSEPs were interviewed. These members indicated several issues that motivated the start of their CSEP, namely; shortage of equipment, sense of solidarity, and a perceived lack of governmental action, lack of democratic values and lack in diversity of perspectives in epidemic management. All respondents believed to have contributed to policy or society, by influencing opinions, and occasionally by altering policy. However, respondents encountered obstacles in their attempts to contribute such as inability to establish contact with authorities, feeling unheard or undermined, and complications due to the interplay of political interests. In conclusion, CSEPs have fulfilled various roles such as providing alternative management policies, producing equipment, representing the needs of vulnerable populations, and supporting citizens and providing citizens with other viewpoints and information. The identified motivators to establish CSEPs in this study uncover room for improvements in policy. These insights, together with the identified perceived barriers of CSEPs, can be used to improve the connection between (future) epidemic management and public priorities and interests.

Engaging citizens in local health policymaking. A realist explorative case-study.

BACKGROUND: Municipalities have been trying to involve citizens as citizen participation is thought to improve municipalities' accountability, the quality of services, and to align policies and services to communities' needs. This study examined citizens' participation preferences in policymaking by investigating their health policy priorities, expectations of involvement, and required support. METHODS: For this case-study the realist evaluation approach was applied to focus groups with citizens and to a workshop with a local panel consisting of professionals, citizens and citizen representatives. RESULTS: This study showed that citizens want to be involved in (health) policymaking with the aim of improving their communities' quality of life and living environment and prioritised local services and amenities (e.g. suitable housing, public transport, health and care services). Instead, professionals' priorities were focussed on singular public health issues related to prevention and lifestyle factors. The results also show that citizens felt responsible for driving citizen participation and representing community needs to the municipality, but needed the municipality to improve their communication and accessibility in order to do so successfully. Furthermore, the professionals on the panel indicated that they needed training on how to reach out to citizens. Such training should highlight how to better align their language to citizens' lived experiences. They also wanted their organisations to provide more space, flexibility and resources to build relationships with citizens in order to provide improved communication and accessibility to citizens. CONCLUSION: The difference in priorities between citizens and professionals highlights the importance of involving citizens in policymaking. Moreover, citizens' involvement can act as a lever for change to bring a wider range of services and policy sectors together and has the potential to better align policies to citizens' lived experiences and hopefully increase the democratic legitimacy of policymaking. However, to fulfil such potential municipalities will need to invest in improving their accessibility and communication with communities.

'They need to ask me first'. Community engagement with low-income citizens. A realist qualitative case-study.

BACKGROUND: Community engagement is seen as key to citizen-centred and sustainable healthcare systems as involving citizens in the designing, implementation and improvement of services and policies is thought to tailor these more closely to communities' own needs and experiences. Organizations have struggled to reach out to and involve disadvantaged citizens. This paper examines how if, why, and when low-income citizens wish to be involved. METHODS: For this qualitative realist case-study, 19 interviews (one dyad) were held with (20) low-income citizens in two Dutch municipalities. Additionally, the results were discussed with a reference panel consisting of professionals and citizens to enrich the results and to ensure the results had face validity. RESULTS: The results showed four different ways in which low-income citizens wished to be involved: (a) in a practical/volunteer way; (b) as a buddy; (c) as a lay expert; (d) not involved at all. The factors affecting citizens' interest and capacity to participate include citizens' own experiences of the services they access and their personal situations, e.g. their mental or physical health, extent of financial crisis, family situation, home environment. None of the interviewees was currently involved, but all had ideas for improving health(care) services and policies. Citizens' experiences of the services they accessed acted as a motivator for some to be involved as they wanted to ensure others would not have the same struggles, while for others their own needs and an apathetic system remained too high a barrier. To enable involvement, citizens need continued support for their own health(care) and financial situation, better communication and accessibility from services, practical support (e.g., training and bus passes) and recognition for their input (e.g., monetary compensation). CONCLUSION: The study shows that citizens' experiences of the services they accessed influenced if and how they wanted to be involved with health and care services. Despite the fact that all participants had shared solid ideas for improving services and policies, they were hindered by a bureaucratic, impersonal and inaccessible system. Organizations seem to underestimate the required investments to reach out to low-income citizens and the support required to ensure their involvement. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (PPI) IN STUDY: Citizens as well as PPI organizations were members of the reference panel who helped formulate the research questions and recruitment strategy. The local reference panel also helped to interpret and refine the initial findings.

Cross-Sector Collaboration for a Healthy Living Environment-Which Strategies to Implement, Why, and in Which Context?

BACKGROUND: Working toward a healthy living environment requires organizations from different policy domains and nongovernment partners involved in public health and the living environment to collaborate across sectors. The aim of this study is to understand how this cross-sector collaboration for a healthy living environment can be achieved. METHODS: The realist evaluation approach was used to investigate what strategies can be used in which contexts to achieve cross-sector collaboration. The "Collaborative Adaptive Health Networks" framework was used as a theoretical framework. Seventeen partners of three Dutch projects collaborating for a healthy living environment in different regions were interviewed about their experiences during the initiating phase of their projects. RESULTS: Seven themes for achieving cross-sector collaboration were identified, namely creating a feeling of equivalence, building trust, bridging different perspectives, providing clarity regarding roles and tasks, creating commitment, creating active engagement, and understanding whom to engage and when. For each theme, the strategies that were used, and why, were specified. CONCLUSION: This study provides new insights in how cross-sector collaboration for a healthy living environment can be achieved in different contexts. Whether the start of a cross-sectoral collaboration is successful is largely influenced by the choice of leadership and the interorganizational relations.

Implementing population health management: an international comparative study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to gain insight into how population health management (PHM) strategies can successfully integrate and reorganize public health, health care, social care and community services to improve population health and quality of care while reducing costs growth, this study compared four large-scale transformation programs: Greater Manchester Devolution, Vancouver Healthy City Strategy, Gen-H Cincinnati and Gesundes Kinzigtal. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Following the realist methodology, this explorative comparative case-study investigated PHM initiatives' key features and participants' experiences of developing such initiatives. A semi-structured interview guideline based on a theoretical framework for PHM guided the interviews with stakeholders (20) from different sectors. FINDINGS: Five initial program theories important to the development of PHM were formulated: (1) create trust in a shared vision and understanding of the PHM rationale to establish stakeholders' commitment to the partnership; (2) create shared ownership for achieving the initiative's goals; (3) create shared financial interest that reduces perceived financial risks to provide financial sustainability; (4) create a learning environment to secure initiative's credibility and (5) create citizens' and professionals' awareness of the required attitudes and behaviours. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The study highlights initial program theories for the implementation of PHM including different strategies and structures underpinning the initiatives. These insights provide a deeper understanding of how large-scale transformation could be developed.