Abstract
Background
Health education interventions are considered critical for the prevention and management of conditions of public health concern. Although the burden of these conditions is often greatest in socio-economically disadvantaged populations, the effectiveness of interventions that target these groups is unknown. We aimed to identify and synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of health-related educational interventions in adult disadvantaged populations.
Methods
We pre-registered the study on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/ek5yg/. We searched Medline, Embase, Emcare, and the Cochrane Register from inception to 5/04/2022 to identify studies evaluating the effectiveness of health-related educational interventions delivered to adults in socio-economically disadvantaged populations. Our primary outcome was health related behaviour and our secondary outcome was a relevant biomarker. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Our synthesis strategy involved random-effects meta-analyses and vote-counting.
Results
We identified 8618 unique records, 96 met our criteria for inclusion – involving more than 57,000 participants from 22 countries. All studies had high or unclear risk of bias. For our primary outcome of behaviour, meta-analyses found a standardised mean effect of education on physical activity of 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.09–0.19), (5 studies, n = 1330) and on cancer screening of 0.29 (95% CI = 0.05–0.52), (5 studies, n = 2388). Considerable statistical heterogeneity was present. Sixty-seven of 81 studies with behavioural outcomes had point estimates favouring the intervention (83% (95% CI = 73%-90%), p < 0.001); 21 of 28 studies with biomarker outcomes showed benefit (75% (95%CI = 56%-88%), p = 0.002). When effectiveness was determined based on conclusions in the included studies, 47% of interventions were effective on behavioural outcomes, and 27% on biomarkers.
Conclusions
Evidence does not demonstrate consistent, positive impacts of educational interventions on health behaviours or biomarkers in socio-economically disadvantaged populations. Continued investment in targeted approaches, coinciding with development of greater understanding of factors determining successful implementation and evaluation, are important to reduce inequalities in health.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Introduction
Health promotion and the prevention of ill-health via population and individual level interventions are key recommendations of the World Health Organization for the management of communicable and non-communicable diseases [1, 2]. Specific health education interventions are considered integral to system-wide public health strategies [3, 4]. Such educational interventions commonly aim to promote understanding about how behaviours impact health, and require individuals to have the capacity to acquire, understand and operationalize the content of health education in order to improve their health status [4, 5]. These capacities are influenced by the social and economic circumstances of individuals’ lives [6, 7].
Social and economic circumstances also importantly contribute to inequalities in health. This is depicted by the ‘social gradient’ in health, [8] whereby the lower a person’s socio-economic position, the poorer their health status. ‘Unhealthy’ behaviours associated with the development of chronic disease, such as smoking, poor diet, too little physical activity, and low engagement with preventative (e.g. screening) healthcare, are more prevalent among individuals who are socially or economically disadvantaged [9, 10]. Public health interventions to promote healthy behaviours may therefore be of most importance for these populations.
Socio-economically determined disparities in health outcomes can sometimes be further increased by behavioural health promotion initiatives, particularly those that are delivered across a large population. Benefit seems to be related to individuals’ access to social and economic resources and improvement is lowest in disadvantaged groups [10, 11]. For example, peoples abilities to respond to health promotion messages by changing health behaviours (such as improving diet and exercising regularly) vary widely – but changes are less likely to be adopted amonst low-income groups [10]. Similarly, technological interventions to improve health outcomes “work better for those who are already better off”(p. 1080), for reasons that stem from discrepancies in accessibility, adoption, and adherence [12]. Intensive, small-scale interventions targeted to high risk populations may be more likely to generate benefits, but economic and practical issues commonly limit broad implementation. Even the best-intentioned interventions frequently fail to reach, and to impact, those whose health needs are greatest.
Although specific educational interventions to improve health literacy and health-related behaviours are considered integral to public health interventions, little is known about the extent to which educational interventions that target disadvantaged populations are effective, nor about the intervention characteristics that are associated with success. Our principal objective was to identify and synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of health-related educational interventions in adult disadvantaged populations. Our primary outcome was health related behaviour, and our secondary outcome was a biomarker related to the health intervention. Our secondary objective was to summarise the characteristics of effective interventions.
Methods
We registered our full protocol a priori on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ek5yg/). Our study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, [13, 14] the Checklist of Items for Reporting Equity-Focused Systematic Reviews (PRISMA-E 20,212 Checklist), [15] and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) [16] reporting guidelines. We deviated from the registered protocol by reconsidering our approach to addressing the secondary objective of this study and undertaking an additional vote-count analysis.
Search strategy and selection criteria
We developed a comprehensive search strategy with the assistance of a health librarian and systematically searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)) since inception to 20th May 2020 to identify eligible studies. We updated these searches on 5th April 2022. Studies were limited to those involving human participants and available in English. Details of the search strategies are provided in Appendix 1.
We searched for studies that assessed the effectiveness of any health-related educational intervention delivered to socio-economically disadvantaged adults in any country. We defined health according to the World Health Organization definition, as: “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” [17]. We defined socio-economically disadvantaged adults as belonging to a socio-economically disadvantaged population, classified as: “an area, neighbourhood or community with residents clearly defined as disadvantaged, relative to the wider national population” [18] (p. 372). Socio-economic disadvantage could be defined by factors including (but not limited to) income, educational level, living standards, and minority grouping. To be eligible for inclusion, at least 75% of participants in the included studies were required to meet this definition of belonging to a socio-economically disadvantaged population and be aged 18 years or over.
Published, peer-reviewed experimental studies investigating the effectiveness of an educational intervention on health-related outcomes were considered for inclusion. Eligible designs included (but were not limited to): randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials. We excluded studies that were not published in English, pilot studies, reviews, commentaries, and case study reports, studies that did not describe the study population sufficiently to enable classification as ‘socio-economically disadvantaged’, and studies that did not report at least one outcome of interest.
Interventions and outcomes
Studies included in this review must have evaluated the effectiveness of an educational intervention. Interventions were considered to be ‘educational’ if the authors described the intervention as having intent to ‘educate’ or ‘inform’. Studies evaluating an educational intervention as their main objective or as a component of a comprehensive intervention were eligible for inclusion. Individual, group, community or population-based health education interventions, delivered through any medium (e.g. face-to-face, telephone, text, online, mass media) were considered. Included studies needed to have compared the educational intervention to any type of intervention, placebo, or no-treatment control. The primary outcome was health-related behaviour, or actions that individuals take that affect their health [19]. All behavioural outcomes that were considered to be health related and related to the study intervention were regarded as relevant. The secondary outcome was any biomarker related to the health condition the intervention was targeting (e.g. body mass index (BMI) as a biomarker of weight loss; or Haemoglobin A1C as a biomarker of diabetes control).
Screening and data extraction
Identified studies were retrieved and exported into Endnote citation management software (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia), and then imported into Covidence systematic review management system (Veritas Health Innovation Limited, Australia). Duplicates were removed. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts for relevance according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria (AG, CP, TA, LW and RS). The full texts of potentially eligible studies were obtained, the article further screened for eligibility and reasons for exclusion recorded. Any discrepancies or disagreements between the two reviewers were discussed. If agreement was not met, a third reviewer (EK) was consulted to provide opinion and a majority decision was made.
Pairs of reviewers independently extracted the relevant data from each study using a standardised and pilot-tested spreadsheet. The results were compared, discrepancies discussed, and a third reviewer was consulted to resolve disagreements if required. The data extraction template included the fields: study design, health ‘condition’, population characteristics (including reason for classification as socio-economically disadvantaged), participant characteristics, sample size, details of study intervention(s) and comparator, assessment time points, outcomes, and results.
Risk of bias assessment
Pairs of authors independently evaluated the risk of bias (ROB) for each study using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing ROB in randomised trials [20]. Six domains were evaluated: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and ‘other’ bias. We used the guideline provided by the Cochrane Handbook to assess each item as high, low or unclear ROB. A third reviewer was consulted to resolve any disagreements between the independent evaluations if required. Overall ROB was also assigned according to the Cochrane Handbook. Low overall ROB was assigned for studies where all key domains were low risk; unclear overall ROB was assigned when key domains were either low or unclear; and high overall ROB was assigned when one or more of the key domains were assigned a high ROB.
Data analysis
To address our primary aim – to identify and synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of health-related educational interventions in disadvantaged populations – we extracted effect sizes and precision estimates from the included studies where available. If an effect size was not reported we extracted the number of participants in each condition, the means and standard deviations of the observations (at the longest follow-up timepoint). We examined the clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the included studies to determine the appropriateness of combining the effect sizes to estimate an overall effect for our primary and secondary outcomes. To determine the appropriateness of data pooling we primarily considered homogeneity of outcomes, follow-up durations and comparison groups. In cases where studies were considered to be sufficiently (clinically and methodologically) homogenous for pooling, but data were missing, we contacted study authors to request the missing data. Authors were emailed, with a follow-up email sent two weeks later. In the case of no reply a further email was sent after another week, and if there was still no reply the data were not included. Random effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird model [21]) was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 3We evaluated the quality of the evidence of the included studies and rated the certainty of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework [22]. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of a funnel plot; Egger’s test was applied if there were 10 or more studies in the meta-analysis [23].
Since meta-analysis could only be performed on a proportion of the studies, we summarised the overall effectiveness of interventions for our primary and secondary outcomes using a vote-counting approach [20]. When studies specified a single primary outcome, we determined intervention benefit from that outcome. We classified ‘intervention benefit’ using a standardised binary metric assigned according to the observed direction of effect. This classification was based on the point estimate of effect, without consideration of statistical significance or the size of the effect. Studies with a point estimate of effect in favour of the intervention were counted as [1]; studies with a point estimate of effect in favour of the control were not counted. When studies had two or more outcomes, we applied a decision rule to identify a single outcome from which to classify intervention benefit (Appendix 2). We calculated the number of effects showing benefit as a proportion of the total number of studies and determined a confidence interval using the Agresti-Coull interval method recommended for large sample sizes [24]. We undertook a subsequent calculation in which we determined the proportion of effective interventions by classifying benefit (for the outcome of interest) according to the conclusions of the individual studies, rather than using the point estimate to indicate effect. This approach minimised the risk of an inflated vote-count result.
To address our secondary objective – to summarise the characteristics of effective interventions – we tabulated details of the intervention (setting, type, dose, description) in a format to facilitate reader interpretation. Classification of intervention dose [25] (as low, moderate, or high) considered intervention duration (in months), frequency (number of contacts), and amount (in hours) (see Appendix 3 for details). We aimed to provide a summary of the features of the effective interventions.
Role of the funding source
The funder of this study played no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the report or decision to submit the paper for publication.
Results
Our searches identified 8618 records; 200 full text articles were screened for eligibility; 96 studies were included (Fig. 1). Key characteristics of the included studies are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Eighty studies (83%) were undertaken in high-income countries; four studies (4%) were undertaken in upper-middle income countries; ten studies (10%) were undertaken in lower-middle income countries; and 3 studies (3%) were undertaken in low-income countries (see Tables 1 and 2). Seventy-seven (80%) of the included studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs); 12 were cluster RCTs (13%); 7 were quasi-experimental studies (7%). The educational interventions addressed a wide range of health issues. The most common education topics were parenting skills, pregnancy and newborn health, (14 studies each) cancer screening, multi-factorial healthy lifestyle interventions (11 studies each), diet (9 studies), smoking cessation (8 studies) and sexual health (5 studies). The total number of adult participants exceeded 57,000, residing in 22 different countries.
Risk of bias
All included studies had either high or unclear overall ROB. The ‘other’ ROB domain of ‘intention to treat analysis’ was most frequently assessed as high. High ROB ratings were also common for ‘number lost to follow up’ and participant blinding (Fig. 2; see Appendix 4 for full details). Visual inspection and interpretation of the funnel plots for each main meta-analysis (to evaluate publication bias) identified no major asymmetries in the distribution of effects for any of the outcomes (Appendix 5), suggesting a low risk of publication bias. Egger’s tests were not conducted because there were < 10 studies in each analysis [23].
Certainty in evidence
Our evaluation of certainty in the evidence for each main meta-analysis was conducted using GRADE. Our results are summarised in relation to each meta-analysis (below); detailed results are provided in Appendix 6.
Data synthesis
High clinical and methodological heterogeneity amongst the included studies precluded overall meta-analysis of effect sizes for the primary and secondary outcomes of this review. Instead, we considered outcomes that were evaluated in three or more of the included studies for meta-analysis. Pre-planned subgroup analyses (specified in the protocol) were explored for intervention complexity, the level of intervention and intervention dose.These were undertaken if there were two or more studies in a subgroup. Results of the main meta-analyses of behaviour outcomes are detailed below; results of subgroup analyses and the meta-analyses of biomarker outcomes are detailed in Appendices 7–9.
Meta-analyses: Behavioural outcomes
Fifteen studies had physical activity or exercise outcomes; nine had dietary outcomes; eight had smoking cessation outcomes; seven had cancer screening outcomes; and five had vaccination and breast-feeding outcomes. Meta-analysis was not conducted for studies involving dietary, smoking cessation, vaccination, and breast-feeding outcomes because of varied study designs, outcome measures, follow-up durations and comparison groups.
Moderate intensity physical activity
We evaluated the 15 studies with physical activity or exercise outcomes for clinical heterogeneity. Six of these studies (total n = 1330) used ‘moderate intensity physical activity’ as a primary or secondary outcome; the intervention group was compared with a minimal intervention, standard care or control group; and effectiveness was evaluated at ‘long term’ follow up [26,27,28,29,30,31]. We downgraded certainty in the evidence by one level due to high risk of bias. There is moderate certainty that the pooled effect of educational interventions, when compared to standard care, minimal intervention or control, is 0.05 (95% CI = -0.09–0.19; Tau2 = 0.01%) (Fig. 3). There was moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 31%), which we explored by removing one study that used a differing outcome measure (i.e. the percentage of participants who improved their physical activity in contrast to post-intervention physical activity measures) from the analysis (2011) [31]. This reduced I2 to 0.0% and the pooled effect increased to 0.11 (95% CI = -0.01–0.22). Subgroup analysis of studies with complex or ‘non-complex’ interventions were possible; the results are reported in Appendix 7.
Cancer screening
We evaluated for clinical heterogeneity the ten studies that had cancer screening outcomes. Five of these studies (n = 2388) used rates of cancer screening as their primary or secondary outcome; the intervention group was compared with a minimal intervention, standard care or control group; and effectiveness was evaluated at ‘long term’ follow up [32,33,34,35,36]. We downgraded certainty in the evidence by four levels due to risk of bias, inconsistency (two levels), and imprecision in trial results. There is very low certainty that the pooled effect of educational interventions, when compared to standard care or minimal intervention is 0.29 (95% CI = 0.05–0.52; Tau2 = 0.24) (Fig. 4). The I2 value of 83% indicates a considerable degree of heterogeneity across trial results. We explored this heterogeneity by removing individual studies from the analysis, which had only a minor impact. Removal of one study [32] reduced statistical heterogeneity to a small degree (I2 = 75%). Subgroup analysis of studies with moderate or low-dose interventions were possible; the results are reported in Appendix 8.
Overall synthesis: Vote-counting
We performed separate vote-counting syntheses for the behavioural outcomes and biomarker outcomes. Vote counting based on direction of effect found that 67 of the 81 studies with behavioural outcomes had point estimates that favoured the intervention (83% (95% CI 73%-90%), p < 0.001); ten studies favoured the control, and four studies demonstrated equal effects for intervention and control conditions. Twenty-one of 28 studies with biomarker outcomes had point estimates that favoured the intervention (75% (95% CI 56%-88%), p = 0.002); four studies favoured the control. Calculation of votes based on ‘effectiveness’ being determined by individual studies found 47% of interventions were effective on behavioural outcomes, and 27% were effective on biomarker outcomes. The votes assigned to each study by both vote-count methods are presented alongside the available data and/or effect estimates in Table 3.
Secondary objective: Characteristics of effective interventions
Narrative synthesis of the features of ‘effective’ versus ‘ineffective’ interventions was precluded by the high clinical and statistical heterogeneity of the included studies. We have organised the studies according to the health focus of the intervention in Table 3. This table provides descriptions of the main characteristics of the interventions alongside indications of effectiveness in order to facilitate reader interpretations.
Discussion
We aimed to (i) identify and synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of health-related educational interventions in adult disadvantaged populations, and (ii) summarise the characteristics of effective interventions. When studies were sufficiently homogenous to allow data pooling, meta-analyses revealed that health education interventions targeting socially disadvantaged populations produced positive behavioural effects that were small or negligible in magnitude. The certainty of evidence was low (at best). Our vote-count syntheses found a marked discrepancy in the proportion of effective interventions depending on the method applied to classify benefit (i.e., 85% versus 43% for behavioural outcomes and 83% versus 31% for biomarker outcomes). The evidence included in this review did not demonstrate consistent, positive impacts of educational interventions on health behaviours or biomarkers in socio-economically disadvantaged populations. We were unable to draw conclusions related to the common features of ‘effective’ interventions due to the high clinical and statistical heterogeneity of the included studies.
Meta-analysis of the six sufficiently homogenous studies aiming to increase physical activity showed no effect, but the four studies that were not included in the meta-analysis due to heterogenous outcomes reported significant improvements in the physical activity outcome compared to control interventions [37,38,39,40]. Of these four positive studies however, two had fewer than 50 participants [37, 38] and two had drop-out rates exceeding 48% [37, 39]. Thus, evidence suggests it is unlikely that educational interventions had changed physical activity in disadvantaged populations.
Educational interventions were shown to have a small, pooled effect (Hedges g = 0.3) on cancer screening rates, however certainty for this evidence was rated as ‘very low’. Five studies investigating cancer screening uptake were not included in this meta-analysis – two used varied outcomes (self-reported breast self-examination), [41, 42] two were low-dose, [42, 43] and two had comparison groups that were active interventions [44, 45]. From these studies, the interventions were effective for the two studies with breast self-examination outcomes, one of which analysed only 21 participants at follow-up. Based on the findings of the studies not included in the meta-analysis, the lack of evidence of benefit combined with the low quality of evidence reinforces that educational interventions to boost cancer-screening had, at best, small effects on cancer screening.
This review of evidence concerning the effectiveness of health-related educational interventions that target socio-economically disadvantaged populations is less encouraging than reviews of other health interventions in socio-economically disadvantaged groups. One review of mixed interventions for diabetes care [46] including novel providers’ roles, education and resources, found positive outcomes in 11 of the 17 included studies. The authors suggested that cultural tailoring, individualised components, multiple contacts (> 10), providing feedback, and involving community educators or lay people in delivery, were associated with better outcomes.
Our findings also show a stark contrast to the positive effect observed from health education interventions in non-disadvantaged socio-economic groups. Educational interventions designed to improve health-related behaviours such as oral health practices (15 studies), [47] foot self-care practices amongst diabetics (14 studies), [48] and cervical cancer screening rates (17 studies), [49] seem to provide mostly meaningful benefit. Education to promote self-management of hypertension demonstrated benefits on blood pressure outcomes in a systematic review of education programs that also targeted self-efficacy (14 studies) [50]. This contrast seems critically important because it raises the distinct possibility that educational interventions that are widely endorsed on the basis of their apparent effects, are often failing to meet the needs of the very people most likely to need them [51].
There are strengths and limitations of this work. We applied contemporary standards of transparency [52] and rigour, and reporting was in line with the PRISMA and PRISMA-E templates, and SWiM guidelines. We were unable to perform meta-analysis on a large majority of included studies due to heterogeneity. We synthesised data from these studies using two vote-counting methods: 1) studies were categorised as positive or negative based on direction of effect, regardless of effect size, and 2) studies were categorised as positive if the authors concluded the intervention was effective. The former method is recommended by Cochrane and does not consider statistical or clinical significance. Critically, neither approach provides estimates of the size of effects which is needed for policy or clinical decisions. The two synthesis methods provided very different results. Method 1 resulted in 83% of positive studies for behavioural outcomes and 75% for biomarkers, Method 2 resulted in 47% and 27% respectively. This inconsistency casts significant doubt over the usefulness of vote-counting approaches and means that we have very low certainty in our conclusions.
There may have been studies eligible for inclusion that were not identified by our database searches. For example, searching for specific conditions (e.g. diabetes) may have identified relevant studies not identified in our more general search for ‘health-related’ interventions; and studies that involved education as components of an intervention without explicit mention of this may have been missed. Citation chaining may also have identified further eligible studies. While not searching grey literature can contribute to an over-estimation of effectiveness (since null findings are less likely to be published in peer reviewed journals), this is unlikely to impact the findings of our review since most of the included studies concluded a lack of effect. Our evaluation of publication bias also suggests that this is not likely to be of major concern. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that we applied a very broad definition of socio-economic disadvantage when selecting studies for inclusion. While included studies most commonly involved participants with low income, types of disadvantage were also widely disparate (e.g., low educational attainment, living in rural areas, ethnic minority groups). Subgroup analyses of these factors was precluded due to study heterogeneity, such that it remains undetermined whether these varied types of disadvantage differentially impacted involvement in clinical trials or responsiveness to interventions. The impact of contextual factors associated with the economic classifications of the countries in which the study was conducted (e.g., lower middle income vs high income) is also unknown.
Conclusions
This review highlights that health-related educational interventions tested to date have not consistently demonstrated positive impacts on health behaviours or biomarkers in socio-economically disadvantaged populations. Based on this conclusion – along with the low certainty of findings and the high ROB of the majority of included studies – we suggest that targeted approaches must continue to be pursued, concurrent with efforts to gain a greater understanding of factors associated with their successful implementation and evaluation. This investment is likely to be important to reduce inequalities in health.
Availability of data and materials
Data collection templates and data extracted will be made available on reasonable request by contacting the Corresponding Author. Participant data from the included studies is not available.
References
World Health Organisation. Accelerating progress on HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis and neglected tropical diseases: a new agenda for 2016–2030. 2015. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/204419. Accessed 1 Aug 2021.
World Health Organisation. Action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases in the WHO European Region. Proceedings of the Regional Committee for Europe 66th Session 2016. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341522. Accessed 1 Aug 2021.
Farquhar JW, Fortmann SP, Flora JA, Taylor CB, Haskell WL, Williams PT, et al. Effects of communitywide education on cardiovascular disease risk factors: the Stanford Five-City Project. JAMA. 1990;264(3):359–65.
Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int. 2000;15(3):259–67.
Batterham RW, Hawkins M, Collins P, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH. Health literacy: applying current concepts to improve health services and reduce health inequalities. Public Health. 2016;132:3–12.
Marmot M, Bell R. Social determinants and non-communicable diseases: time for integrated action. BMJ. 2019;364: l251.
Garcia-Codina O, Juvinyà-Canal D, Amil-Bujan P, Bertran-Noguer C, González-Mestre MA, Masachs-Fatjo E, et al. Determinants of health literacy in the general population: results of the Catalan health survey. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–12.
Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365(9464):1099–104.
Marmot M, Bell R. Fair society, healthy lives. Public Health. 2012;126:S4–10.
Baum F, Fisher M. Why behavioural health promotion endures despite its failure to reduce health inequities. Sociol Health Illn. 2014;36(2):213–25.
Lorenc T, Oliver K. Adverse effects of public health interventions: a conceptual framework. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(3):288–90.
Veinot TC, Mitchell H, Ancker JS. Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(8):1080–8.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349: g7647.
Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Moher D, O’Neill J, Waters E, et al. PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9(10): e1001333.
Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890.
World Health Organisation Constitution. https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/constitution. Accessed 1 Aug 2021.
Cleland CL, Tully MA, Kee F, Cupples ME. The effectiveness of physical activity interventions in socio-economically disadvantaged communities: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2012;54(6):371–80.
Short SE, Mollborn S. Social determinants and health behaviors: conceptual frames and empirical advances. Curr Opin Psychol. 2015;5:78–84.
Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. 2020. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 20 Feb 2021.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.
Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343: d4002.
Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Sci. 2001;16(2):101–33.
Voils CI, King HA, Maciejewski ML, Allen KD, Yancy WS Jr, Shaffer JA. Approaches for informing optimal dose of behavioral interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2014;48(3):392–401.
Zoellner JM, Hedrick VE, You W, Chen Y, Davy BM, Porter KJ, et al. Effects of a behavioral and health literacy intervention to reduce sugar-sweetened beverages: A randomized-controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13 (1):(38).
Khare MM, Carpenter RA, Huber R, Bates NJ, Cursio JF, Balmer PW, et al. Lifestyle intervention and cardiovascular risk reduction in the Illinois WISEWOMAN Program. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012;21(3):294–301.
Khare MM, Cursio JF, Locklin CA, Bates NJ, Loo RK. Lifestyle intervention and cardiovascular disease risk reduction in low-income Hispanic immigrant women participating in the Illinois WISEWOMAN program. J Community Health. 2014;39(4):737–46.
Hovell MF, Mulvihill MM, Buono MJ, Liles S, Schade DH, Washington TA, et al. Culturally tailored aerobic exercise intervention for low-income Latinas. Am J Health Promot. 2008;22(3):155–63.
Keyserling TC, Samuel Hodge CD, Jilcott SB, Johnston LF, Garcia BA, Gizlice Z, et al. Randomized trial of a clinic-based, community-supported, lifestyle intervention to improve physical activity and diet: the North Carolina enhanced WISEWOMAN project. Prev Med. 2008;46(6):499–510.
Parra-Medina D, Wilcox S, Salinas J, Addy C, Fore E, Poston M, et al. Results of the Heart Healthy and Ethnically Relevant Lifestyle trial: a cardiovascular risk reduction intervention for African American women attending community health centers. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(10):1914–21.
Byrd TL, Wilson KM, Smith JL, Coronado G, Vernon SW, Fernandez-Esquer ME, et al. AMIGAS: A multicity, multicomponent cervical cancer prevention trial among Mexican American women. Cancer. 2013;119(7):1365–72.
Gathirua-Mwangi WG, Monahan PO, Stump T, Rawl SM, Skinner CS, Champion VL. Mammography Adherence in African-American Women: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Behav Med. 2016;50(1):70–8.
Katz ML, Tatum CM, Degraffinreid CR, Dickinson S, Paskett ED. Do cervical cancer screening rates increase in association with an intervention designed to increase mammography usage? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16(1):24–35.
Kreuter MW, Sugg-Skinner C, Holt CL, Clark EM, Haire-Joshu D, Fu Q, et al. Cultural tailoring for mammography and fruit and vegetable intake among low-income African-American women in urban public health centers. Prev Med. 2005;41(1):53–62.
Valdez A, Napoles AM, Stewart SL, Garza A. A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Cervical Cancer Education Intervention for Latinas Delivered Through Interactive, Multimedia Kiosks. J Cancer Educ. 2018;33:222-30.
Avila P, Hovell MF. Physical activity training for weight loss in Latinas: a controlled trial. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1994;18(7):476–82.
King AC, Bickmore TW, Campero MI, Pruitt LA, Yin JL. Employing virtual advisors in preventive care for underserved communities: Results from the compass study. J Health Commun. 2013;18(12):1449–64.
Hillemeier MM, Downs DS, Feinberg ME, Weisman CS, Chuang CH, Parrott R, et al. Improving Women's Preconceptional Health. Findings from a Randomized Trial of the Strong Healthy Women Intervention in the Central Pennsylvania Women's Health Study. Womens Health Issues. 2008;18(6 SUPPL.):S87-S96.
Hayashi T, Farrell MA, Chaput LA, Rocha DA, Hernandez M. Lifestyle intervention, behavioral changes, and improvement in cardiovascular risk profiles in the California WISEWOMAN project. J Womens Health (2002). 2010;19(6):1129–38.
Fitzgibbon ML, Gapstur SM, Knight SJ. Results of Mujeres Felices por ser Saludables: a dietary/breast health randomized clinical trial for Latino women. Ann Behav Med. 2004;28(2):95–104.
Kalichman SC, Williams E, Nachimson D. Randomized community trial of a breast self-examination skills-building intervention for inner-city African-American women. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2000;55(1):47–50.
Doorenbos AZ, Jacobsen C, Corpuz R, Forquera R, Buchwald D. A randomized controlled calendar mail-out to increase cancer screening among urban American Indian and alaska native patients. J Cancer Educ. 2011;26(3):549–54.
Calderon-Mora J, Byrd TL, Alomari A, Salaiz R, Dwivedi A, Mallawaarachchi I, et al. Group Versus Individual Culturally Tailored and Theory-Based Education to Promote Cervical Cancer Screening Among the Underserved Hispanics: A Cluster Randomized Trial. Am J Health Promot. 2020;34(1):15–24.
Kreuter MW, Holmes K, Alcaraz K, Kalesan B, Rath S, Richert M, et al. Comparing narrative and informational videos to increase mammography in low-income African American women. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(SUPPL. 1):S6–14.
Glazier RH, Bajcar J, Kennie NR, Willson K. A systematic review of interventions to improve diabetes care in socially disadvantaged populations. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(7):1675–88.
Nakre PD, Harikiran A. Effectiveness of oral health education programs: A systematic review. J Int Soc Prev Commun Dentist. 2013;3(2):103.
Ahmad Sharoni SK, Minhat HS, Mohd Zulkefli NA, Baharom A. Health education programmes to improve foot self-care practices and foot problems among older people with diabetes: a systematic review. Int J Older People Nurs. 2016;11(3):214–39.
Agide FD, Garmaroudi G, Sadeghi R, Shakibazadeh E, Yaseri M, Koricha ZB, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of health education interventions to increase cervical cancer screening uptake. Eur J Pub Health. 2018;28(6):1156–62.
Foroumandi E, Kheirouri S, Alizadeh M. The potency of education programs for management of blood pressure through increasing self-efficacy of hypertensive patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(3):451–61.
Vilhelmsson A, Östergren P-O. Reducing health inequalities with interventions targeting behavioral factors among individuals with low levels of education-A rapid review. PLoS One. 2018;13(4).e0195774
Lee H, Lamb SE, Bagg MK, Toomey E, Cashin AG, Moseley GL. Reproducible and replicable pain research: a critical review. Pain. 2018;159(9):1683-9.
Brooking LA, Williams SM, Mann JI. Effects of macronutrient composition of the diet on body fat in indigenous people at high risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012;96(1):40–6.
Kim KB, Han HR, Huh B, Nguyen T, Lee H, Kim MT. The effect of a community-based self-help multimodal behavioral intervention in Korean American seniors with high blood pressure. Am J Hypertens. 2014;27(9):1199–208.
Kisioglu AN, Aslan B, Ozturk M, Aykut M, Ilhan I. Improving control of high blood pressure among middle-aged Turkish women of low socio-economic status through public health training. Croat Med J. 2004;45(4):477–82.
Staten LK, Gregory-Mercado KY, Ranger-Moore J, Will JC, Giuliano AR, Ford ES, et al. Provider counseling, health education, and community health workers: the Arizona WISEWOMAN project. J Womens Health (2002). 2004;13(5):547‐56.
Suhadi R, Virginia DM, Setiawan CH. The Effect of Health Education by Pharmacists on 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Cluster-Randomized Control Study in a Low Socioeconomic Status Javanese Population. J Prim Care Community Health. 2018;9:2150132718773674.
Abiyu C, Belachew T. Effect of complementary feeding behavior change communication delivered through community-level actors on dietary adequacy of infants in rural communities of West Gojjam Zone, Northwest Ethiopia: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2020;15(9).e0238355
Acharya A, Lalwani T, Dutta R, Rajaratnam JK, Ruducha J, Varkey LC, et al. Evaluating a large-scale community-based intervention to improve pregnancy and newborn health among the rural poor in India. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(1):144–52.
Almabadi ES, Seymour GJ, Akhter R, Bauman A, Cullinan MP, Eberhard J. Reduction of hsCRP levels following an Oral Health Education Program combined with routine dental treatment. J Dent. 2021;110: 103686.
Alegria M, Carson N, Flores M, Li X, Shi P, Lessios AS, et al. Activation, self-management, engagement, and retention in behavioral health care. JAMA Psychiat. 2014;71(5):557–65.
Blancafort Alias S, Monteserín Nadal R, Moral I, Roqué Fígols M, Rojano i Luque X, Coll-Planas L. Promoting social capital, self-management and health literacy in older adults through a group-based intervention delivered in low-income urban areas: results of the randomized trial AEQUALIS. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1–12.
Alvarenga P, Cerezo MÁ, Wiese E, Piccinini CA. Effects of a short video feedback intervention on enhancing maternal sensitivity and infant development in low-income families. Attach Hum Dev. 2020;22(5):534–54.
Andrews JO, Mueller M, Dooley M, Newman SD, Magwood GS, Tingen MS. Effect of a smoking cessation intervention for women in subsidized neighborhoods: A randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2016;90:170–6.
Annan J, Sim A, Puffer ES, Salhi C, Betancourt TS. Improving mental health outcomes of Burmese migrant and displaced children in Thailand: a community-based randomized controlled trial of a parenting and family skills intervention. Prev Sci. 2017;18(7):793–803.
Bagner DM, Coxe S, Hungerford GM, Garcia D, Barroso NE, Hernandez J, et al. Behavioral Parent Training in Infancy: A Window of Opportunity for High-Risk Families. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2016;44(5):901–12.
Baranowski T, Simons-Morton B, Hooks P, Henske J, Tiernan K, Dunn JK, et al. A center-based program for exercise change among black-American families. Health Educ Q. 1990;17(2):179–96.
Barry CM, Robinson LR, Kaminski JW, Danielson ML, Jones CL, Lang DL. Behavioral and Socioemotional Outcomes of the Legacy for Children™ Randomized Control Trial to Promote Healthy Development of Children Living in Poverty, 4 to 6 Years Postintervention. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2022;43(1):e39–47.
Befort CA, Klemp JR, Sullivan DK, Diaz FJ, Schmitz KH, Perri MG, et al. Comparison of strategies for weight loss maintenance among rural breast cancer survivors: The rural women connecting for better health randomized controlled trial. Cancer Research Conference: 38th Annual CTRC AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium San Antonio, TX United States Conference Publication:. 2016;76(4 SUPPL. 1).
Berman BA, Gritz ER, Braxton-Owens H, Nisenbaum R. Targeting adult smokers through a multi-ethnic public school system. J Cancer Educ. 1995;10(2):91–101.
Bray P, Cummings DM, Morrissey S, Thompson D, Holbert D, Wilson K, et al. Improved outcomes in diabetes care for rural African Americans. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(2):145–50.
Brooks DR, Burtner JL, Borrelli B, Heeren TC, Evans T, Davine JA, et al. Twelve-Month Outcomes of a Group-Randomized Community Health Advocate-Led Smoking Cessation Intervention in Public Housing. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;20(12):1434–41.
Brown SA, Kouzekanani K, Garcia AA, Orlander PR, Hanis CL. Diabetes Self-Management and Leptin in Mexican Americans With Type 2 Diabetes: The Starr County Border Health Initiative. Diabetes Educator. 2013;39(6):820–7.
Cahill AG, Haire-Joshu D, Cade WT, Stein RI, Woolfolk CL, Moley K, et al. Weight control program and gestational weight gain in disadvantaged women with overweight or obesity: a randomized clinical trial. Obesity. 2018;26(3):485–91.
Childs F, Aukett A, Darbyshire P, Ilett S, Livera LN. Dietary education and iron deficiency anaemia in the inner city. Arch Dis Child. 1997;76(2):144–7.
Cibulka NJ, Forney S, Goodwin K, Lazaroff P, Sarabia R. Improving oral health in low-income pregnant women with a nurse practitioner-directed oral care program. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2011;23(5):249–57.
Curry SJ, Ludman EJ, Graham E, Stout J, Grothaus L, Lozano P. Pediatric-based smoking cessation intervention for low-income women: A randomized trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157(3):295–302.
Damush TM, Weinberger M, Perkins SM, Rao JK, Tierney WM, Qi R, et al. The Long-term Effects of a Self-management Program for Inner-city Primary Care Patients with Acute Low Back Pain. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(21):2632–8.
Dawson-McClure S, Calzada E, Huang KY, Kamboukos D, Rhule D, Kolawole B, et al. A Population-Level Approach to Promoting Healthy Child Development and School Success in Low-Income, Urban Neighborhoods: Impact on Parenting and Child Conduct Problems. Prev Sci. 2014;16(2):279–90.
Dela Cruz A, Mueller G, Milgrom P, Coldwell SE. A community-based randomized trial of postcard mailings to increase dental utilization among low-income children. J Dent Child. 2012;79(3):154–8.
El-Mohandes AAE, Katz KS, El-Khorazaty MN, McNeely-Johnson D, Sharps PW, Jarrett MH, et al. The effect of a parenting education program on the use of preventive pediatric health care services among low-income, minority mothers: A randomized, controlled study. Pediatrics. 2003;111(6 I):1324–32.
El-Mohandes AAE, Kiely M, Blake SM, Gantz MG, Nabil E-K. An intervention to reduce environmental tobacco smoke exposure improves pregnancy outcomes. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):721–8.
Emmons KM, Hammond SK, Fava JL, Velicer WF, Evans JL, Monroe AD. A randomized trial to reduce passive smoke exposure in low-income households with young children. Pediatrics. 2001;108(1):18–24.
Falbe J, Cadiz AA, Tantoco NK, Thompson HR, Madsen KA. Active and healthy families: a randomized controlled trial of a culturally tailored obesity intervention for Latino children. Academy of Pediatrics. 2015;15(4):386–95.
Fernandez-Jimenez R, Jaslow R, Bansilal S, Diaz-Munoz R, Fatterpekar M, Santana M, et al. Different Lifestyle Interventions in Adults From Underserved Communities: The FAMILIA Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(1):42–56.
Fiks AG, Gruver RS, Bishop-Gilyard CT, Shults J, Virudachalam S, Suh AW, et al. A social media peer group for mothers to prevent obesity from Infancy: the Grow2Gether randomized trial. Childhood Obesity (Print). 2017;13(5):356–68.
Fitzgibbon ML, Stolley MR, Avellone ME, Sugerman S, Chavez N. Involving parents in cancer risk reduction: a program for Hispanic American families. Health Psychol. 1996;15(6):413–22.
Fox JC, Blank M, Berman J, Rovnyak VG. Mental disorders and help seeking in a rural impoverished population. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1999;29(2):181–95.
Gielen AC, Windsor R, Faden RR, O’Campo P, Repke J, Davis M. Evaluation of a smoking cessation intervention for pregnant women in an urban prenatal clinic. Health Educ Res. 1997;12(2):247–54.
Hesselink AE, van Poppel MN, van Eijsden M, Twisk JWR, van der Wal MF. The effectiveness of a perinatal education programme on smoking, infant care, and psychosocial health for ethnic Turkish women. Midwifery. 2012;28(3):306–13.
Hooper MW, Antoni MH, Okuyemi K, Dietz NA, Resnicow K. Randomized controlled trial of group-based culturally specific cognitive behavioral therapy among African American smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017;19(3):333–41.
Hunt IF, Jacob M, Ostergard NJ. Effect of nutrition education on the nutritional status of low income pregnant women of Mexican descent. Am J Clin Nutr. 1976;29(6):675–84.
Jacobson TA, Thomas DM, Morton FJ, Offutt G, Shevlin J, Ray S. Use of a low-literacy patient education tool to enhance pneumococcal vaccination rates: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282(7):646–50.
Janicke DM, Sallinen BJ, Perri MG, Lutes LD, Huerta M, Silverstein JH, et al. Comparison of parent-only vs family-based interventions for overweight children in underserved rural settings: outcomes from project STORY. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(12):1119–25.
Jensen SK, Placencio-Castro M, Murray SM, Brennan RT, Goshev S, Farrar J, et al. Effect of a home-visiting parenting program to promote early childhood development and prevent violence: a cluster-randomized trial in Rwanda. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(1): e003508.
Kasari C, Lawton K, Shih W, Barker TV, Landa R, Lord C, et al. Caregiver-mediated intervention for low-resourced preschoolers with autism: An RCT. Pediatrics. 2014;134(1):e72–9.
Kelly JA, Murphy DA, Washington CD, Wilson TS, Koob JJ, Davis DR, et al. The effects of HIV/AIDS intervention groups for high-risk women in urban clinics. Am J Public Health. 1994;84(12):1918–22.
Kim E-J, Nho J-H, Kim H-Y, Park S-K. The effects of lifestyle interventions on the health-promoting behavior, type D personality, cognitive function and body composition of low-income middle-aged Korean women. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(11):5637.
Krieger JW, Takaro TK, Song L, Weaver M. The Seattle-King County Healthy Homes Project: a randomized, controlled trial of a community health worker intervention to decrease exposure to indoor asthma triggers. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(4):652–9.
Kulathinal S, Joseph B, Saavala M. Mobile helpline and reversible contraception: Lessons from a controlled before-and-after study in rural India. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21 (8) (no pagination)(e12672).
Lutenbacher M, Elkins T, Dietrich MS, Riggs A. The efficacy of using peer mentors to improve maternal and infant health outcomes in Hispanic Families: findings from a randomized clinical trial. Maternal Child Health J. 2018;22(Suppl 1):92–104.
Maldonado LY, Songok JJ, Snelgrove JW, Ochieng CB, Chelagat S, Ikemeri JE, et al. Promoting positive maternal, newborn, and child health behaviors through a group-based health education and microfinance program: a prospective matched cohort study in western Kenya. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):1–14.
Manandhar DS, Osrin D, Shrestha BP, Mesko N, Morrison J, Tumbahangphe KM, et al. Effect of a participatory intervention with women’s groups on birth outcomes in Nepal: cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2004;364(9438):970–9.
Martin MY, Kim YI, Kratt P, Litaker MS, Kohler CL, Schoenberger YM, et al. Medication adherence among rural, low-income hypertensive adults: A randomized trial of a multimedia community-based intervention. Am J Health Promot. 2011;25(6):372–8.
McClure JB, Anderson ML, Krakauer C, Blasi P, Bush T, Nelson J, et al. Impact of a novel oral health promotion program on routine oral hygiene among socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers: results from a randomized semi-pragmatic trial. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2020;10(2):469–77.
McConnell M, Ettenger A, Rothschild CW, Muigai F, Cohen J. Can a community health worker administered postnatal checklist increase health-seeking behaviors and knowledge?: evidence from a randomized trial with a private maternity facility in Kiambu County, Kenya. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):136.
McGilloway S, NiMhaille G, Bywater T, Leckey Y, Kelly P, Furlong M, et al. Reducing child conduct disordered behaviour and improving parent mental health in disadvantaged families: a 12-month follow-up and cost analysis of a parenting intervention. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;23(9):783–94.
Miller SM, Hui SKA, Wen KY, Scarpato J, Zhu F, Buzaglo J, et al. Tailored telephone counseling to improve adherence to follow-up regimens after an abnormal pap smear among minority, underserved women. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(3):488–95.
Murthy N, Chandrasekharan S, Prakash MP, Kaonga NN, Peter J, Ganju A, et al. The impact of an mHealth voice message service (mMitra) on infant care knowledge, and practices among low-income women in India: findings from a pseudo-randomized controlled trial. Matern Child Health J. 2019;23(12):1658–69.
Pandey P, Sehgal AR, Riboud M, Levine D, Goyal M. Informing resource-poor populations and the delivery of entitled health and social services in rural India: a cluster randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298(16):1867–75.
Phillips JH, Wigger C, Beissbarth J, McCallum GB, Leach A, Morris PS. Can mobile phone multimedia messages and text messages improve clinic attendance for Aboriginal children with chronic otitis media? A randomised controlled trial. J Paediatr Child Health. 2014;50(5):362–7.
Pitchik HO, Tofail F, Rahman M, Akter F, Sultana J, Shoab AK, et al. A holistic approach to promoting early child development: a cluster randomised trial of a group-based, multicomponent intervention in rural Bangladesh. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(3): e004307.
Polomoff CM, Bermudez-Millan A, Buckley T, Buxton OM, Feinn R, Kong S, et al. Pharmacists and community health workers improve medication-related process outcomes among Cambodian Americans with depression and risk for diabetes. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2022;62(2):496–504. e1.
Reijneveld SA, Westhoff MH, Hopman-Rock M. Promotion of health and physical activity improves the mental health of elderly immigrants: results of a group randomised controlled trial among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands aged 45 and over. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(6):405–11.
Reisine S, Douglass J, Aseltine R, Shanley E, Thompson C, Thibodeau E. Prenatal nutrition intervention to reduce mutans streptococci among low-income women. J Public Health Dent. 2012;72(1):75–81.
Ridgeway JL, Jenkins SM, Borah BJ, Suman VJ, Patel BK, Ghosh K, et al. Evaluating educational interventions to increase breast density awareness among Latinas: A randomized trial in a Federally Qualified Health Center. Cancer. 2022;128(5):1038–47.
Robinson BB, Uhl G, Miner M, Bockting WO, Scheltema KE, Rosser BR, et al. Evaluation of a sexual health approach to prevent HIV among low income, urban, primarily African American women: results of a randomized controlled trial. AIDS Educ Prev. 2002;14(3 Suppl A):81–96.
Ryser FG. Breastfeeding attitudes, intention, and initiation in low-income women: the effect of the best start program. J Hum Lact. 2004;20(3):300–5.
Saleh S, Farah A, Dimassi H, El Arnaout N, Constantin J, Osman M, et al. Using mobile health to enhance outcomes of noncommunicable diseases care in rural settings and refugee camps: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20 (7) (no pagination)(e137).
Santa Maria D, Markham C, Misra S, Coleman DC, Lyons M, Desormeaux C, et al. Effects of a randomized controlled trial of a brief, student-nurse led, parent-based sexual health intervention on parental protective factors and HPV vaccination uptake. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1–14.
Segal-Isaacson CJ, Tobin JN, Weiss SM, Brondolo E, Vaughn A, Wang C, et al. Improving dietary habits in disadvantaged women with HIV/AIDS: the SMART/EST women’s project. AIDS Behav. 2006;10(6):659–70.
Seguin-Fowler RA, Strogatz D, Graham ML, Eldridge GD, Marshall GA, Folta SC, et al. The Strong Hearts, Healthy Communities Program 2.0: An RCT Examining Effects on Simple 7. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59(1):32–40.
Simmons VN, Sutton SK, Medina-Ramirez P, Martinez U, Brandon KO, Byrne MM, et al. Self-help smoking cessation intervention for Spanish-speaking Hispanics/Latinxs in the United States: A randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2022;128(5):984–94.
Smith JD, Berkel C, Carroll AJ, Fu E, Grimm KJ, Mauricio AM, et al. Health behaviour outcomes of a family based intervention for paediatric obesity in primary care: A randomized type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Pediatr Obes. 2021;16(9): e12780.
Steptoe A, Perkins-Porras L, McKay C, Rink E, Hilton S, Cappuccio FP. Behavioural counselling to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables in low income adults: randomised trial. BMJ. 2003;326(7394):855.
Wiggins M, Oakley A, Roberts I, Turner H, Rajan L, Austerberry H, et al. Postnatal support for mothers living in disadvantaged inner city areas: A randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(4):288–95.
Xu DR, Xiao S, He H, Caine ED, Gloyd S, Simoni J, et al. Lay health supporters aided by mobile text messaging to improve adherence, symptoms, and functioning among people with schizophrenia in a resource-poor community in rural China (LEAN): a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2019;16(4): e1002785.
Hoodbhoy Z, Sheikh SS, Qureshi R, Memon J, Raza F, Kinshella M-LW, et al. Role of community engagement in maternal health in rural Pakistan: Findings from the CLIP randomized trial. J Global Health. 2021;11:04045.
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3. Biostat, Englewood, NJ 2013.
Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods. 2017;8(1):5–18.
Acknowledgements
The funder of this study played no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the International Spine Centre, Adelaide, Australia, for their support and early contributions to project planning.
Funding
EK and AG are supported by Lifetime Support Authority South Australia (GA00096). GLM and EK are supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator Grant to GLM (NHMRC ID 1178444). HL is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC ID APP1126767); National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. SK is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship (NHMRC ID APP1127932). CW is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (NHMRC APP ID 1177226). LW, RS and CP declare no funding support related to this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
EK and GLM are responsible for the conceptual planning of this study and have accessed and verified the data. EK wrote the original study protocol. GLM, HL, SK and CW contributed to the final protocol. AG conducted the database searches and was assisted by LW, RS, CP, TA and EK with screening and data extraction. EK led the data analysis and was assisted by HL, SK, CW and GLM with the synthesis, reporting and interpretation of results. EK wrote the original draft of the manuscript. All authors made contributions to reporting, were involved in reviewing subsequent drafts of the manuscript and have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
GLM has received support unrelated to this work from Reality Health, Connect Health UK, AIA Australia, Kaiser Permanente, Workers' Compensation Boards in Australia, Europe and North America, the International Olympic Committee, the Melbourne Football Club and the Arsenal Football Club. GLM receives royalties for several books on pain and speakers’ fees for talks on pain, pain education, physiotherapy, and rehabilitation. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Karran, E.L., Grant, A.R., Lee, H. et al. Do health education initiatives assist socioeconomically disadvantaged populations? A systematic review and meta-analyses. BMC Public Health 23, 453 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15329-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15329-z