Participatory Approaches in Community Health in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review Protocol

What we know about participation and community health

Initial reviews on participatory approaches in community health linked to the COVID-19 pandemic have been published in the literature, with many of these reviews focussing on certain aspects of participation or in specific contexts. For example, one scoping review examined “community engagement and involvement” and mapped the stakeholders particularly in urban poor settings in LMICs.²⁰ There is also a systematic review still in progress that aims to examine “community engagement” with a global scope but specifically on how participation supports COVID-19 vaccine uptake.²¹ One rapid evidence review explored “community engagement” approaches during infectious disease outbreaks prior to COVID-19 (i.e., Ebola, Zika, SARS, MERS, and H1N1 outbreaks) and identified community engagement actors and their functions.³

Outside the context of public health emergencies, several reviews on community participation have been published, starting with the first reviews on CBPR by Israel et al. in 1998²² and by Salimi et al. in 2012.²³ A scoping review that specifically explored the literature on “community-engaged research” has identified up 100 reviews on the topic between 2005-2018.²⁴ One systematic review in 2019 on “community participation” in health services focused on high-income countries (HICs) and concluded that participation had a positive impact when substantiated by strong organisational and community processes,²⁵ while an earlier systematic review in 2015 assessed the extent, nature, and quality of “community participation” in health systems research on LMICs and concluded that participation was variable.¹⁶

Knowledge gaps this review will address

This scoping review will contribute to the body of knowledge on participation and community health by addressing three key gaps that remain. First, there remains a lack of a comprehensive analysis of participatory approaches and their variations as represented in the literature. Such an analysis should not only describe participatory approaches as wide-ranging but also systematically characterise the depth of participation across a spectrum of low-to-high participation, including which stakeholders participate in the process and the balance of power shared between them. An analysis of participatory approaches is comprehensive when it also examines the nuances in the narratives of participation given the differences in the terms used to refer to participation. The second gap has to do with the need for a synthesis of the “complete picture” of the breadth of participatory approaches in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic involving all types of communities, covering all categories of activities and interventions, and across all geographic and country income contexts. Third, it remains unclear how exactly participation has impacted community health in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. The wealth of information from numerous COVID-19-related publications that have been added to the literature in recent years offers a strategic opportunity for this scoping review to address these gaps.

Review objective and questions

To achieve a comprehensive, extensive, and systematic understanding of participatory approaches in community health in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, this scoping review aims to provide an overview of participatory approaches in terms of the features and depth of participation, the breadth of the communities and stakeholders involved, and for what types of activities and interventions in light of the pandemic across all country contexts. We will also explore the challenges and facilitators of the participation process and how and to what extent participation impacts community health, including health equity, in the setting of a public health emergency. Our three main review questions are as follows:

1. What were the participatory approaches applied in community health in light of the COVID-19 pandemic according to depth of participation, communities involved, type of pandemic response, and country contexts?

2. What were the main challenges and facilitators for participatory approaches in community health in the COVID-19 pandemic?

3. How did participatory approaches impact community health, including health equity, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic?

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first scoping review of participatory approaches with an extensive coverage of all types of participation, community groups, categories of interventions in the context of COVID-19, and across all country contexts. It is important to highlight that, in addressing the third review question regarding impacts, our goal here is not to demonstrate a causal link between participation and community health and particularly not on individual-level outcomes. Instead, we are interested in a deeper understanding of participation as a process,²⁶ including a reflective analysis of its relevant domains that support concrete interventions to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. We will explore the possibility of developing a preliminary theory of change or logic model²⁷ that could explain why and how participation contributes to community health in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. We anticipate that our findings will contribute not only in addressing the knowledge gaps enumerated above but also in advancing innovative thinking about community participation and facilitating better application and integration of participatory approaches to ensure community health in a future public health emergency²⁸ or in building back better fairer in the new normal.^1,4

PCC Framework

We referred to the Population-Concept-Context (PCC) framework²⁹ to develop our search strategy. Our Population of interest is the community in “community health.” Within the field of health promotion, community health refers to the health status of a group of people, defined by their geographical proximity, shared values, culture, norms or special interests and the actions and conditions to promote, protect and preserve their health.³² Typically, a community is arranged in a social structure based on relationships that have been developed over a period of time. Its members have some awareness of their group identity and a commitment to meet their shared needs. Community health is not the same as “population health” that is often used in biomedical or epidemiological research which only refers to the health status of people generally without defining them as particular groups. Our Concept of interest is “participation” which could be understood in a spectrum of high to low as illustrated in Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation: from providing information, to consultation, to involvement through regular interactions, to collaboration that require shared decision-making, to community self-organisation.³³ There are several overlapping terms that are also used but may refer to the same idea of participation such as participatory action research, action research, participatory research, youth participatory action research, public involvement, practitioner research, collaborative research, citizen science, street science, participatory health research,¹⁵ as well as co-creation, collaboration, co-design, engagement.³⁴ Our search strategy and planned analysis will cover all variations in the use of these terms that refer to participation. Finally, our Context of interest will be the COVID-19 pandemic in any country regardless of geographic location or income classification.

Eligibility criteria

We will include articles that fulfil the following criteria:

• The article is about the COVID-19 pandemic;

• The article describes a participatory approach implemented in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic;

• The participatory approach in the article involves a particular community of people. All of the above elements must be present for an article to be considered eligible.

We will exclude articles if:

• The article is in the category of “opinion-based” articles such as, but not limited to, commentaries, perspectives, letters to the editor, viewpoints, correspondence, editorials, news feature, etc.;

• The participatory approach in the article is for addressing a non-health challenge (e.g., loss of income, lack of transportation, etc.), unless the challenge is discussed in relation to health;

• The community/ies referred to in the article are in a healthcare facility setting or in a biomedical/clinical context; or refer to specific patient groups seeking treatment for a particular service (e.g., prenatal care), community of health professionals or trainees (e.g., community pharmacists, medical students, etc.), or virtual communities (e.g., online communities, social media communities, etc.).

Our process for including/excluding an article during screening is summarised by the following flowchart:

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

We will apply no date restriction, although we do not anticipate screening any article before 2020, or the year when COVID-19 became a pandemic, because our search strategy specifically searched for COVID-19-related publications. We will also apply no language restrictions. Our team includes reviewers who are fluent in English, German, and Spanish. During title/abstract screening, we will use DeepL Translate (DeepL SE, Cologne, Germany) to translate non-English articles and assess if the article would be considered further. A non-English article included in full text screening will be translated by consulting colleagues who are fluent in the language of the article.

Information sources

Nine bibliographic databases were searched until June 2nd 2023: Medline/Ovid, Embase.com, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo/Ovid, Global Health/Ovid, ERIC/OvidSP, CINAHL/EBSCOhost, ClinTrials.gov. Additional articles (including grey literature) were retrieved based on the first 200 references from Google Scholar. Duplicate records were removed using a fully automated deduplication solution, Deduklick.³⁵ Since we are not excluding review articles, we will also review their list of references and assess the eligibility of each reference.

Search strategy

The complete search strategy is presented in the Appendix.

Records management and screening process

Screening and management of records will be performed using Endnote^TM (Clarivate, PA, USA) with a duplicate set of records maintained using Zotero (CDS, VA, USA) as back-up. Records will be stored securely using the OneDrive (M365) (Microsoft, WA, USA) campus account of the University of Bern. Both the phases of title/abstract screening and full text screening will involve two reviewers working independently. Any conflicts in the inclusion/exclusion of an article will be resolved by discussion between the two reviewers or by consulting the project leader (AF). We will summarise the screening process through a PRISMA flow diagram in the final manuscript. Charting of data will also be performed by two reviewers using Microsoft Excel® (Microsoft, WA, USA) and the information collected will be reconciled through discussion. We will not be performing quality appraisal to assess bias in articles following the guidance for scoping reviews²⁹ because our goal is to map the body of literature and not to answer a focused review question on effectiveness.

Data items to be charted

1. Characteristics of included articles

   • Authors and year of publication

   • Country of the main affiliation of the first author

   • Country/ies where the study was undertaken

     • Further grouped according to country income level based on the World Bank classification³⁶ and according to the regions of the World Health Organization³⁷

   • Type of article (e.g., research article) and study design (e.g., mixed methods)

   • Main discipline/s of the study (e.g., economics, political science, etc.)

   • At which phase of the pandemic (e.g., early phase, during, or post-pandemic)

2. Participatory approaches for community health

Description of participation

• Term/s used to refer to participation (e.g., co-creation, engagement, etc.)

• How participation was defined in the article

• Narrative or basis for participation (e.g., emancipatory, utilitarian, or another argument)

• Type of activity or health intervention/s that involved participation, whether to address COVID-19 directly (e.g., COVID-19 vaccination) or indirectly (e.g., support for loneliness)

• How participation was implemented

  • Brief description of the process

• During which stage of the public health action cycle³⁸ (e.g., agenda setting, problem definitions, planning, priority setting, implementation, monitoring/evaluation, quality management, advocacy)

• Depth of participation (low-to-high, referring to Arnstein’s ladder of participation³³)

• Challenges and facilitators to participation

Description of community health

• Definition of community health (if any given)

• Community groups involved in the participation according to

  • Gender (e.g., women’s group)

  • Socioeconomic class (e.g., middle-income families)

  • Age (e.g., teenagers, elderly)

  • Livelihood (e.g., farming communities)

  • Race, ethnicity, or nationality (e.g., Asian)

  • Religious beliefs (e.g., Muslim community)

  • Vulnerable groups (e.g., migrants, refugees)

  • Other group categories

• Specific individual actors in the community who were involved, including which actors possessed more (or less) power in influencing the process

• Outcomes at the community level that were targeted by the participatory approach

  • Health equity outcomes

  • Other outcomes related to community health and wellbeing

Planned data synthesis

We will use descriptive statistics to present an overview of the characteristics of the included studies through tables and graphs. We will perform content analysis³⁹ in examining variations in participatory approaches and community health and use mapping⁴⁰ to visualise patterns in the links between participation, community health, and the type of intervention to address the COVID-19 pandemic. We will explore the possibility of developing a theoretical framework or logic model²⁷ to illustrate how and why participation impacts community health, including how it contributes to health equity, in a setting of a public health emergency. Finally, we will identify new research questions that will build on our review findings and propose a research agenda and/or a subsequent study to test our theory empirically.

Although this is an a priori protocol, we also recognise that the presentation of findings in the final manuscript could evolve because of the iterative process of data charting and synthesis.²⁹ We will report deviations from this protocol in the final manuscript.