Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review
Although community engagement (CE) is widely used in health promotion, components of CE models associated with improved health are poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the magnitude of the impact of CE on health and health inequalities among disadvantaged populations, which methodological...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Global health action 2015-01, Vol.8 (1), p.29842-12 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 12 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 29842 |
| container_title | Global health action |
| container_volume | 8 |
| creator | Cyril, Sheila Smith, Ben J. Possamai-Inesedy, Alphia Renzaho, Andre M. N. |
| description | Although community engagement (CE) is widely used in health promotion, components of CE models associated with improved health are poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the magnitude of the impact of CE on health and health inequalities among disadvantaged populations, which methodological approaches maximise the effectiveness of CE, and components of CE that are acceptable, feasible, and effective when used among disadvantaged populations.
The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We carried out methodological assessments of the included studies using rating scales. The analysis focussed on model synthesis to identify the key CE components linked to positive study outcomes and comparative analysis between positive study outcomes, processes, and quality indicators of CE.
Out of 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria, 21 (87.5%) had positively impacted health behaviours, public health planning, health service access, health literacy, and a range of health outcomes. More than half of the studies (58%) were of good quality, whereas 71% and 42% of studies showed good community involvement in research and achieved high levels of CE, respectively. Key CE components that affected health outcomes included real power-sharing, collaborative partnerships, bidirectional learning, incorporating the voice and agency of beneficiary communities in research protocol, and using bicultural health workers for intervention delivery.
The findings suggest that CE models can lead to improved health and health behaviours among disadvantaged populations if designed properly and implemented through effective community consultation and participation. We also found several gaps in the current measurement of CE in health intervention studies, which suggests the importance of developing innovative approaches to measure CE impact on health outcomes in a more rigorous way. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.3402/gha.v8.29842 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1753014168</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ef6077fbc8694a8e8e54ddb70f5c62af</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2215233183</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c511t-bcb0cd6116924a1486e0bfdc225020baf2e4cf6006cc1386f38713616a20ae993</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk1v1DAQhiMEoqVw44wsceHALv5IHIdDJVQVqFSJC5ytiWMnXiV2sJ2U_fe43W5FEeJke_zo0czoLYrXBG9ZiemHfoDtKra0ESV9UpwSXpWbRgj89HivCT8pXsS4w5izumbPixPKuWhKjk-LdPlrHn2wrkdp0Cj4USNvkPLTtDib9ki7Hno9aZeQdchOc_DrkR40jGm45TsboVvBpcx2aPbzMkKy3sWPCFDcx6Sn_FYo6NXqm5fFMwNj1K_uz7Pix-fL7xdfN9ffvlxdfLreqIqQtGlVi1XHCeENLYGUgmvcmk5RWmGKWzBUl8rwPJZShAlumKgJ44QDxaCbhp0VVwdv52En52AnCHvpwcq7gg-9hJDbGrXU2VPXplWCNyUILXRVdl1bY1MpTsFk1_nBNS_tpDuVFxJgfCR9_OPsIHu_ypKLqql5Fry7FwT_c9ExyclGpccRnPZLlKSu8oiCNHVG3_6F7vwSXF6VpJRUlDEi2P-o7GKYlISLTL0_UCr4GIM2Dy0TLG8DJHOA5CrkXYAy_ubPMR_gY2IyUB8A64wPE9z4MHYywT6nyARwykbJ_qn-DXVV1qE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1753014168</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review</title><source>Taylor & Francis Open Access</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Co-Action Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Cyril, Sheila ; Smith, Ben J. ; Possamai-Inesedy, Alphia ; Renzaho, Andre M. N.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cyril, Sheila ; Smith, Ben J. ; Possamai-Inesedy, Alphia ; Renzaho, Andre M. N.</creatorcontrib><description>Although community engagement (CE) is widely used in health promotion, components of CE models associated with improved health are poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the magnitude of the impact of CE on health and health inequalities among disadvantaged populations, which methodological approaches maximise the effectiveness of CE, and components of CE that are acceptable, feasible, and effective when used among disadvantaged populations.
The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We carried out methodological assessments of the included studies using rating scales. The analysis focussed on model synthesis to identify the key CE components linked to positive study outcomes and comparative analysis between positive study outcomes, processes, and quality indicators of CE.
Out of 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria, 21 (87.5%) had positively impacted health behaviours, public health planning, health service access, health literacy, and a range of health outcomes. More than half of the studies (58%) were of good quality, whereas 71% and 42% of studies showed good community involvement in research and achieved high levels of CE, respectively. Key CE components that affected health outcomes included real power-sharing, collaborative partnerships, bidirectional learning, incorporating the voice and agency of beneficiary communities in research protocol, and using bicultural health workers for intervention delivery.
The findings suggest that CE models can lead to improved health and health behaviours among disadvantaged populations if designed properly and implemented through effective community consultation and participation. We also found several gaps in the current measurement of CE in health intervention studies, which suggests the importance of developing innovative approaches to measure CE impact on health outcomes in a more rigorous way.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1654-9716</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1654-9880</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1654-9880</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3402/gha.v8.29842</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26689460</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Taylor & Francis</publisher><subject>Bidirectionality ; Citizen participation ; Collaborative learning ; Community ; community engagement ; Community involvement ; Community Participation ; Comparative analysis ; Components ; Cooperative Behavior ; culturally and linguistically diverse ; Disadvantaged ; disadvantaged populations ; Empowerment ; Epidemiology ; ethnic minorities ; Ethnicity ; health ; Health Behavior ; Health care ; Health disparities ; Health literacy ; Health promotion ; Health Promotion - methods ; Health services ; Health status ; Health Status Disparities ; Healthcare Disparities ; Humans ; Intervention ; Measurement ; Medical research ; Minority Groups ; Mortality ; Original ; Partnerships ; Population ; Power ; Preventive medicine ; Public health ; Quality management ; Social sciences ; Socioeconomic Factors ; Studies ; Systematic review ; United States ; Vulnerable Populations</subject><ispartof>Global health action, 2015-01, Vol.8 (1), p.29842-12</ispartof><rights>2015 Sheila Cyril et al. 2015</rights><rights>Copyright Co-Action Publishing 2015</rights><rights>2015 Sheila Cyril et al. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c511t-bcb0cd6116924a1486e0bfdc225020baf2e4cf6006cc1386f38713616a20ae993</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4685976/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4685976/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,4125,27479,27901,27902,53766,53768,59116,59117</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26689460$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cyril, Sheila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Ben J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Possamai-Inesedy, Alphia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renzaho, Andre M. N.</creatorcontrib><title>Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review</title><title>Global health action</title><addtitle>Glob Health Action</addtitle><description>Although community engagement (CE) is widely used in health promotion, components of CE models associated with improved health are poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the magnitude of the impact of CE on health and health inequalities among disadvantaged populations, which methodological approaches maximise the effectiveness of CE, and components of CE that are acceptable, feasible, and effective when used among disadvantaged populations.
The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We carried out methodological assessments of the included studies using rating scales. The analysis focussed on model synthesis to identify the key CE components linked to positive study outcomes and comparative analysis between positive study outcomes, processes, and quality indicators of CE.
Out of 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria, 21 (87.5%) had positively impacted health behaviours, public health planning, health service access, health literacy, and a range of health outcomes. More than half of the studies (58%) were of good quality, whereas 71% and 42% of studies showed good community involvement in research and achieved high levels of CE, respectively. Key CE components that affected health outcomes included real power-sharing, collaborative partnerships, bidirectional learning, incorporating the voice and agency of beneficiary communities in research protocol, and using bicultural health workers for intervention delivery.
The findings suggest that CE models can lead to improved health and health behaviours among disadvantaged populations if designed properly and implemented through effective community consultation and participation. We also found several gaps in the current measurement of CE in health intervention studies, which suggests the importance of developing innovative approaches to measure CE impact on health outcomes in a more rigorous way.</description><subject>Bidirectionality</subject><subject>Citizen participation</subject><subject>Collaborative learning</subject><subject>Community</subject><subject>community engagement</subject><subject>Community involvement</subject><subject>Community Participation</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Components</subject><subject>Cooperative Behavior</subject><subject>culturally and linguistically diverse</subject><subject>Disadvantaged</subject><subject>disadvantaged populations</subject><subject>Empowerment</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>ethnic minorities</subject><subject>Ethnicity</subject><subject>health</subject><subject>Health Behavior</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health disparities</subject><subject>Health literacy</subject><subject>Health promotion</subject><subject>Health Promotion - methods</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Health status</subject><subject>Health Status Disparities</subject><subject>Healthcare Disparities</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Minority Groups</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Partnerships</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Preventive medicine</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Quality management</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>Socioeconomic Factors</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Vulnerable Populations</subject><issn>1654-9716</issn><issn>1654-9880</issn><issn>1654-9880</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>0YH</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kk1v1DAQhiMEoqVw44wsceHALv5IHIdDJVQVqFSJC5ytiWMnXiV2sJ2U_fe43W5FEeJke_zo0czoLYrXBG9ZiemHfoDtKra0ESV9UpwSXpWbRgj89HivCT8pXsS4w5izumbPixPKuWhKjk-LdPlrHn2wrkdp0Cj4USNvkPLTtDib9ki7Hno9aZeQdchOc_DrkR40jGm45TsboVvBpcx2aPbzMkKy3sWPCFDcx6Sn_FYo6NXqm5fFMwNj1K_uz7Pix-fL7xdfN9ffvlxdfLreqIqQtGlVi1XHCeENLYGUgmvcmk5RWmGKWzBUl8rwPJZShAlumKgJ44QDxaCbhp0VVwdv52En52AnCHvpwcq7gg-9hJDbGrXU2VPXplWCNyUILXRVdl1bY1MpTsFk1_nBNS_tpDuVFxJgfCR9_OPsIHu_ypKLqql5Fry7FwT_c9ExyclGpccRnPZLlKSu8oiCNHVG3_6F7vwSXF6VpJRUlDEi2P-o7GKYlISLTL0_UCr4GIM2Dy0TLG8DJHOA5CrkXYAy_ubPMR_gY2IyUB8A64wPE9z4MHYywT6nyARwykbJ_qn-DXVV1qE</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Cyril, Sheila</creator><creator>Smith, Ben J.</creator><creator>Possamai-Inesedy, Alphia</creator><creator>Renzaho, Andre M. N.</creator><general>Taylor & Francis</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><general>Co-Action Publishing</general><general>Taylor & Francis Group</general><scope>0YH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review</title><author>Cyril, Sheila ; Smith, Ben J. ; Possamai-Inesedy, Alphia ; Renzaho, Andre M. N.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c511t-bcb0cd6116924a1486e0bfdc225020baf2e4cf6006cc1386f38713616a20ae993</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Bidirectionality</topic><topic>Citizen participation</topic><topic>Collaborative learning</topic><topic>Community</topic><topic>community engagement</topic><topic>Community involvement</topic><topic>Community Participation</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Components</topic><topic>Cooperative Behavior</topic><topic>culturally and linguistically diverse</topic><topic>Disadvantaged</topic><topic>disadvantaged populations</topic><topic>Empowerment</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>ethnic minorities</topic><topic>Ethnicity</topic><topic>health</topic><topic>Health Behavior</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health disparities</topic><topic>Health literacy</topic><topic>Health promotion</topic><topic>Health Promotion - methods</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Health status</topic><topic>Health Status Disparities</topic><topic>Healthcare Disparities</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Minority Groups</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Partnerships</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Preventive medicine</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Quality management</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>Socioeconomic Factors</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Vulnerable Populations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cyril, Sheila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Ben J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Possamai-Inesedy, Alphia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renzaho, Andre M. N.</creatorcontrib><collection>Taylor & Francis Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Global health action</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cyril, Sheila</au><au>Smith, Ben J.</au><au>Possamai-Inesedy, Alphia</au><au>Renzaho, Andre M. N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Global health action</jtitle><addtitle>Glob Health Action</addtitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>29842</spage><epage>12</epage><pages>29842-12</pages><issn>1654-9716</issn><issn>1654-9880</issn><eissn>1654-9880</eissn><abstract>Although community engagement (CE) is widely used in health promotion, components of CE models associated with improved health are poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the magnitude of the impact of CE on health and health inequalities among disadvantaged populations, which methodological approaches maximise the effectiveness of CE, and components of CE that are acceptable, feasible, and effective when used among disadvantaged populations.
The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We carried out methodological assessments of the included studies using rating scales. The analysis focussed on model synthesis to identify the key CE components linked to positive study outcomes and comparative analysis between positive study outcomes, processes, and quality indicators of CE.
Out of 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria, 21 (87.5%) had positively impacted health behaviours, public health planning, health service access, health literacy, and a range of health outcomes. More than half of the studies (58%) were of good quality, whereas 71% and 42% of studies showed good community involvement in research and achieved high levels of CE, respectively. Key CE components that affected health outcomes included real power-sharing, collaborative partnerships, bidirectional learning, incorporating the voice and agency of beneficiary communities in research protocol, and using bicultural health workers for intervention delivery.
The findings suggest that CE models can lead to improved health and health behaviours among disadvantaged populations if designed properly and implemented through effective community consultation and participation. We also found several gaps in the current measurement of CE in health intervention studies, which suggests the importance of developing innovative approaches to measure CE impact on health outcomes in a more rigorous way.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis</pub><pmid>26689460</pmid><doi>10.3402/gha.v8.29842</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1654-9716 |
| ispartof | Global health action, 2015-01, Vol.8 (1), p.29842-12 |
| issn | 1654-9716 1654-9880 1654-9880 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1753014168 |
| source | Taylor & Francis Open Access; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Co-Action Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Bidirectionality Citizen participation Collaborative learning Community community engagement Community involvement Community Participation Comparative analysis Components Cooperative Behavior culturally and linguistically diverse Disadvantaged disadvantaged populations Empowerment Epidemiology ethnic minorities Ethnicity health Health Behavior Health care Health disparities Health literacy Health promotion Health Promotion - methods Health services Health status Health Status Disparities Healthcare Disparities Humans Intervention Measurement Medical research Minority Groups Mortality Original Partnerships Population Power Preventive medicine Public health Quality management Social sciences Socioeconomic Factors Studies Systematic review United States Vulnerable Populations |
| title | Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T17%3A17%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Exploring%20the%20role%20of%20community%20engagement%20in%20improving%20the%20health%20of%20disadvantaged%20populations:%20a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Global%20health%20action&rft.au=Cyril,%20Sheila&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29842&rft.epage=12&rft.pages=29842-12&rft.issn=1654-9716&rft.eissn=1654-9880&rft_id=info:doi/10.3402/gha.v8.29842&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2215233183%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1753014168&rft_id=info:pmid/26689460&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_ef6077fbc8694a8e8e54ddb70f5c62af&rfr_iscdi=true |