Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Achieving successful community engagement: a rapid realist review

Open access
De Weger, E., Van Vooren, N., Luijkx, K. G., Baan, C. A., Drewes, H. W.·2018·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Community engagement is increasingly seen as crucial to achieving high quality, efficient and collaborative care. However, organisations are still searching for the best and most effective ways to engage citizens in the shaping of health and care services. This review highlights the barriers and enablers for engaging communities in the planning, designing, governing, and/or delivering of health and care services on the macro or meso level. It provides policymakers and professionals with evidence-based guiding principles to implement their own effective community engagement (CE) strategies. METHODS: A Rapid Realist Review was conducted to investigate how interventions interact with contexts and mechanisms to influence the effectiveness of CE. A local reference panel, consisting of health and care professionals and experts, assisted in the development of the research questions and search strategy. The panel's input helped to refine the review's findings. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted. RESULTS: Eight action-oriented guiding principles were identified: Ensure staff provide supportive and facilitative leadership to citizens based on transparency; foster a safe and trusting environment enabling citizens to provide input; ensure citizens' early involvement; share decision-making and governance control with citizens; acknowledge and address citizens' experiences of power imbalances between citizens and professionals; invest in citizens who feel they lack the skills and confidence to engage; create quick and tangible wins; take into account both citizens' and organisations' motivations. CONCLUSIONS: An especially important thread throughout the CE literature is the influence of power imbalances and organisations' willingness, or not, to address such imbalances. The literature suggests that 'meaningful participation' of citizens can only be achieved if organisational processes are adapted to ensure that they are inclusive, accessible and supportive of citizens.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12913-018-3090-1

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
De Weger, E., Van Vooren, N., Luijkx, K. G., Baan, C. A., & Drewes, H. W.
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2018-04-13
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
285-285
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800745748
Cited by
231
References
5
FWCI
17.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Achieving successful community engagement: a rapid realist review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12913-018-3090-1
The paper
De Weger, E., Van Vooren, N., Luijkx, K. G., Baan, C. A., & Drewes, H. W. (2018). Achieving successful community engagement: a rapid realist review. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3090-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.