CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 417Community Health and DevelopmentPublic Health Policies and EducationCommunity and Sustainable Development

A planning framework for community empowerment goals within health promotion

Laverack, G.·2000·Health Policy and Planning
DOI 10.1093/heapol/15.3.255
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Health promotion often comprises a tension between 'bottom-up' and 'top-down' programming. The former, more associated with concepts of community empowerment, begins on issues of concern to particular groups or individuals, and regards some improvement in their overall power or capacity as the important health outcome. The latter, more associated with disease prevention efforts, begins by seeking to involve particular groups or individuals in issues and activities largely defined by health agencies, and regards improvement in particular behaviours as the important health outcome. Community empowerment is viewed more instrumentally as a means to the end of health behaviour change. The tension between these two approaches is not unresolvable, but this requires a different orientation on the part of those responsible for planning more conventional, top-down programmes. This article presents a framework intended to assist planners, implementers and evaluators to systematically consider community empowerment goals within top-down health promotion programming. The framework 'unpacks' the tensions in health promotion at each stage of the more conventional, top-down programme cycle, by presenting a parallel 'empowerment' track. The framework also presents a new technology for the assessment and strategic planning of nine identified 'domains' that represent the organizational influences on the process of community empowerment. Future papers analyze the design of this assessment and planning methodology, and discuss the findings of its field-testing in rural communities in Fiji.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/heapol/15.3.255

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A top-down approach is needed because external experts have specific health promotion knowledge, skills, and experiences, which may lead to more effective changes.

    “A top-down approach is needed as the external experts involved have specific health promotion knowledge, skills, and experiences, which may lead to more effective changes [30,34].”

    From The Healthy Primary School of the Future: A Contextual Action-Oriented Research Approach (2018) · cites this paper as [34]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Laverack, G.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Laverack, G.
ORCID
Laverack, G.
Venue
Health Policy and Planning
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2000-09-01
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
255-262
ISSN
  • 0268-1080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2237
DOI
10.1093/heapol/15.3.255
OpenAlex
W2001158331
Cited by
417
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 30
FWCI
12.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Policy and Planning (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Community and Sustainable Development
Keywords
community empowerment, health promotion, planning framework, health behavior change, strategic planning, rural communities, Fiji
MeSH terms
Community-Institutional Relations, Community Participation, Decision Making, Organizational, Health Plan Implementation, Health Promotion, Humans, Organizational Objectives, Power, Psychological, United States, Program Development, Community Health Planning, Needs Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review