Exploring the Broader Benefits of Obesity Prevention Community-based Interventions From the Perspective of Multiple Stakeholders.

IF 1.8 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS Health Care Analysis Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1007/s10728-024-00495-x

J Jacobs, M Nichols, N Ward, M Sultana, S Allender, V Brown

{"title":"Exploring the Broader Benefits of Obesity Prevention Community-based Interventions From the Perspective of Multiple Stakeholders.","authors":"J Jacobs, M Nichols, N Ward, M Sultana, S Allender, V Brown","doi":"10.1007/s10728-024-00495-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Community-based interventions (CBIs) show promise as effective and cost-effective obesity prevention initiatives. CBIs are typically complex interventions, including multiple settings, strategies and stakeholders. Cost-effectiveness evidence, however, generally only considers a narrow range of costs and benefits associated with anthropometric outcomes. While it is recognised that the complexity of CBIs may result in broader non-health societal and community benefits, the identification, measurement, and quantification of these outcomes is limited. This study aimed to understand the perspectives of stakeholders on the broader benefits of CBIs and their measurement, as well as perceptions of CBI cost-effectiveness. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from three stakeholder groups (lead researchers, funders, and community stakeholders of CBIs). Online semi-structured interviews were conducted, taking a constructivist approach. Coding, theme development and analysis were based on published guidance for thematic analysis. Twenty-six stakeholders participated in the interviews (12 lead researchers; 7 funders; 6 community stakeholders). Six key themes emerged; (1) Impacts of CBIs (health impacts and broader impacts); (2) Broader benefits were important to stakeholders; (3) Measurement of benefits are challenging; (4) CBIs were considered cost-effective; (5) Framing CBIs for community engagement (6) Making equitable impacts and sustaining changes-successes and challenges. Across all stakeholders, broader benefits, particularly the establishment of networks and partnerships within communities, were seen as important outcomes of CBIs. Participants viewed the CBI approach to obesity prevention as cost-effective, however, there were challenges in measuring, quantifying and valuing broader benefits. Development of tools to measure and quantify broader benefits would allow for more comprehensive evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of CBIs for obesity prevention.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-024-00495-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Community-based interventions (CBIs) show promise as effective and cost-effective obesity prevention initiatives. CBIs are typically complex interventions, including multiple settings, strategies and stakeholders. Cost-effectiveness evidence, however, generally only considers a narrow range of costs and benefits associated with anthropometric outcomes. While it is recognised that the complexity of CBIs may result in broader non-health societal and community benefits, the identification, measurement, and quantification of these outcomes is limited. This study aimed to understand the perspectives of stakeholders on the broader benefits of CBIs and their measurement, as well as perceptions of CBI cost-effectiveness. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from three stakeholder groups (lead researchers, funders, and community stakeholders of CBIs). Online semi-structured interviews were conducted, taking a constructivist approach. Coding, theme development and analysis were based on published guidance for thematic analysis. Twenty-six stakeholders participated in the interviews (12 lead researchers; 7 funders; 6 community stakeholders). Six key themes emerged; (1) Impacts of CBIs (health impacts and broader impacts); (2) Broader benefits were important to stakeholders; (3) Measurement of benefits are challenging; (4) CBIs were considered cost-effective; (5) Framing CBIs for community engagement (6) Making equitable impacts and sustaining changes-successes and challenges. Across all stakeholders, broader benefits, particularly the establishment of networks and partnerships within communities, were seen as important outcomes of CBIs. Participants viewed the CBI approach to obesity prevention as cost-effective, however, there were challenges in measuring, quantifying and valuing broader benefits. Development of tools to measure and quantify broader benefits would allow for more comprehensive evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of CBIs for obesity prevention.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

从多方利益相关者的角度探索肥胖预防社区干预措施的更广泛益处。

以社区为基础的干预措施（CBIs）有望成为有效且具有成本效益的肥胖预防措施。社区干预措施通常是复杂的干预措施，包括多种环境、策略和利益相关者。然而，成本效益证据一般只考虑与人体测量结果相关的成本和效益的狭窄范围。尽管人们认识到社区参与式干预的复杂性可能会带来更广泛的非健康社会和社区效益，但对这些成果的识别、衡量和量化却十分有限。本研究旨在了解利益相关者对社区健康倡议更广泛益处的看法及其衡量方法，以及对社区健康倡议成本效益的看法。研究采用了有针对性的抽样方法，从三个利益相关者群体（主要研究人员、资助者和社区支持行动的社区利益相关者）中招募参与者。采用建构主义方法进行了在线半结构式访谈。编码、主题发展和分析均基于已发布的主题分析指南。26 名利益相关者参加了访谈（12 名主要研究人员；7 名资助者；6 名社区利益相关者）。出现了六个关键主题：（1）社区参与倡议的影响（对健康的影响和更广泛的影响）；（2）更广泛的益处对利益相关者很重要；（3）益处的衡量具有挑战性；（4）社区参与倡议被认为具有成本效益；（5）为社区参与社区参与倡议制定框架；（6）产生公平影响和维持变化--成功与挑战。在所有利益相关者中，更广泛的益处，特别是在社区内建立网络和伙伴关系，被视为社区参与倡议的重要成果。与会者认为社区参与预防肥胖症的方法具有成本效益，但在衡量、量化和评估更广泛的效益方面存在挑战。开发测量和量化更广泛效益的工具将有助于更全面地评估社区参与预防肥胖的成本效益。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Health Care Analysis Multiple-

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.