Elsevier

Health & Place

Volume 12, Issue 4, December 2006, Pages 665-677
Health & Place

Impact evaluation of a Dutch community intervention to improve health-related behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.09.002Get rights and content

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of a 2-year community intervention on health-related behaviour among adults aged 18–65 years living in deprived neighbourhoods in Eindhoven, The Netherlands. The intervention is evaluated in a community intervention trial with a quasi-experimental design in a longitudinal cohort survey (n=1926 and attrition rate: 31%) using postal questionnaires. In the 2-year implementation phase, more than 40 intervention activities were planned and delivered by intersectoral neighbourhood coalitions. Outcome measures were fruit consumption, vegetable consumption, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption and intermediate outcomes of behaviour (i.e. attitudes, self-efficacy, awareness, knowledge and stages of change). The intervention demonstrated no evidence for an impact on vegetable consumption, physical activity, smoking and alcohol consumption and weak evidence for a small impact on (intermediate) outcomes of fruit consumption.

Introduction

Available data on socioeconomic inequalities in health in Europe show that inequalities in mortality and self-reported morbidity are substantial (Mackenbach and Bakker, 2002). Health-related behaviours are important determinants of health and are often differentially distributed across socioeconomic groups. Studies have shown that smoking (Cavelaars et al., 2000; Choiniere et al., 2000), consumption of a less healthy diet (Martikainen et al., 2003), lack of physical activity (Cauley et al., 1991; Ford et al., 1991) and obesity (Molarius et al., 2000; Lenthe van and Mackenbach, 2002) are more prevalent among lower socioeconomic groups. National advisory committees in several European countries have proposed comprehensive strategies to reduce health inequalities. One of the recommendations of the Dutch committee was to adapt health promotion programmes to the needs of lower socioeconomic groups (Mackenbach and Stronks, 2002). Community interventions are especially thought to be suitable for this purpose (Mackenbach and Bakker, 2003). Furthermore, the latest Dutch Public Health Status and Forecasts have shown that the increase of life expectancy in the Netherlands is lagging behind the increase of life expectancy in other European Union countries (Oers van, 2002). Unhealthy behaviour is seen as one of the major causes underlying this stagnation.

Community interventions are likely to be a promising approach to target disadvantaged populations, for several reasons. Firstly, lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to respond to information from their direct social environment instead of external sources like general (mass media) information campaigns (Weenig and Midden, 1997). Community participation creates the opportunity to reach residents through the social networks of involved community members. Secondly, the inclusion of multiple change tactics such as group programmes, publicity campaigns or school-based activities within the intervention programme creates the opportunity to reach participants through multiple information channels. Thirdly, preventive measures to improve risk behaviours are not always an important issue on the agenda of residents in deprived neighbourhoods because they also have to deal with problems like poverty, unemployment or housing. However, if health authorities plan and implement activities together with community members and also act upon these “competing problems” they are more likely to create support for health behaviour prevention goals.

Much of what we know about community interventions in deprived neighbourhoods comes from studies in the United States and Canada (Fisher et al., 1998; O’Loughlin et al., 1999). The Neighbours for Smoke Free North Side programme goals were directed at smoking cessation in predominantly African American neighbourhoods. The 2-year intervention programme reported a positive intervention effect on the prevalence of smoking in the intervention neighbourhoods (Fisher et al., 1998). The Coeur en Santé heart health promotion programme promoted heart-healthy behaviours in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. The 5-year programme reported only a small but positive intervention effect on the frequency of cholesterol checkups in the intervention neighbourhoods (O’Loughlin et al., 1999). In the Netherlands, a community intervention aimed at reducing socioeconomic health inequalities by targeting health-related problems defined by community members themselves showed no impact on improved perceived health or health-related problems (Abbema et al., 2004). Thus, these results raise questions about the effectiveness of community interventions in deprived neighbourhoods.

The programme “Wijkgezondheidswerk” (Dutch for Working on Healthy Neighbourhoods) is a community intervention to improve health-related behaviour among adults living in deprived neighbourhoods in the city of Eindhoven. The intervention was based on a theoretical framework that used community organization principles (Bracht et al., 1998; Thompson and Kinne, 1998) and two social cognition models, the Transtheoretical Model of Change (Prochaska et al., 1992) and the Attitude-Social influence-Efficacy model of behavioural change (Kok et al., 1991; Vries de et al., 1988), to achieve intervention implementation and changes in outcomes of health-related behaviour. The aim of this evaluation was to examine the impact of the programme “Wijkgezondheidswerk” on health-related behaviours and intermediate outcomes of health-related behaviour, including knowledge, attitudes (beliefs about a particular behaviour), self-efficacy expectations (a person's beliefs about their abilities to perform a particular behaviour) and awareness of one's own behaviour and the intention to change behaviour (stages of change).

Section snippets

Design and setting

Eindhoven is one of the 30 big cities in the Netherlands and therefore part of the Urban Policy system developed by the Dutch national government. The main objectives of the Urban Policy are to tackle urban problems in the economic, social and physical domains. To tackle health inequalities, the cities are advised to follow the interventions and policy measures recommended by the Dutch advisory committee on socioeconomic inequalities in health (Mackenbach and Stronks, 2002). In 1997, the city

Respondents

Two-year follow-up data were collected from 69% (n=1929) of the respondents in the baseline survey. Logistic regression analyses showed that follow-up attrition did not differ between the intervention and comparison neighbourhoods. However, dropouts were more likely to be male, younger and smoker than respondents who participated in both surveys (results not shown). Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics and outcome measures at baseline and follow-up. At baseline, respondents in the

Discussion

After 2 years of implementing a wide range of health behaviour activities we found evidence for a small impact on fruit consumption and intermediate outcomes of fruit consumption including knowledge related to fruit and vegetable consumption, stages of change for fruit consumption and self-efficacy expectations for fruit consumption. The intervention also had a small impact on the awareness of one's own physical activity level. The intervention showed no impact on outcomes of vegetable

Acknowledgements

This research project was supported by a grant from the Dutch Health Research and Development Council (ZonMw) (No. 22000045) and the study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

References (42)

  • I.M.B. Bongers et al.

    Alcohol use and problem drinking: prevalence in the general Rotterdam population

    Substance Use and Misuse

    (1997)
  • N. Bracht et al.

    A five-stage community organization model for health promotion: empowerment and partnership strategies

  • R.C. Brownson et al.

    Preventing cardiovascular disease through community-based risk reduction: the Bootheel Heart Health Project

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1996)
  • M.K. Campbell et al.

    Fruit and vegetable consumption and prevention of cancer: the black churches united for better health project

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1999)
  • J.A. Cauley et al.

    Physical activity by socioeconomic status in two population based cohorts

    Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

    (1991)
  • A.E.J.M. Cavelaars et al.

    Educational differences in smoking: international comparison

    British Medical Journal

    (2000)
  • R. Choiniere et al.

    Distribution of cardiovascular disease risk factors by socioeconomic status among Canadian adults

    Canadian Medical Association Journal

    (2000)
  • H.A. Feldman et al.

    Cohort versus cross-sectional design in large field trials: precision, sample size, and a unifying model

    Statistics in Medicine

    (1994)
  • E.B. Fisher et al.

    Neighbors for a smoke free north side: evaluation of a community organization approach to promoting smoking cessation among African Americans

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1998)
  • E.S. Ford et al.

    Physical activity behaviors in lower and higher socioeconomic status populations

    American Journal of Epidemiology

    (1991)
  • S. Havas et al.

    Final results of the Maryland WIC 5-a-day promotion program

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1998)
  • Cited by (36)

    • Effectiveness of community-based cardiovascular disease prevention interventions to improve physical activity: A systematic review and meta-regression

      2021, Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Further details of outcome measures for each study is available in the supplementary material (table S1). Interventions involved several primordial and primary prevention strategies including health education and awareness creation either individually or in group through training, academic courses, lectures and workshops (The Writing Group for the Activity Counseling Trial Research Group, 2001; Laska et al., 2016; Østbye et al., 2009; Khunti et al., 2012; Wendel-Vos et al., 2009; Lv et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2011; Sarrafzadegan et al., 2009; Jafar et al., 2009; Gunawardena et al., 2016); community mobilization activities through group sessions, group activities, peer support programs, social networking and campaign (Brownson et al., 2004; Carrasquillo et al., 2017; Dirige et al., 2013; Ayala et al., 2015; Laska et al., 2016; Stewart et al., 2001; Toobert et al., 2010; Isaacs et al., 2007; Iliffe et al., 2014; Davies et al., 2016; Burke et al., 2003; Wendy et al., 2006; Freene et al., 2015; Lombard et al., 2010; Saito et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2013; Kloek et al., 2006; Luten et al., 2016; De Cocker et al., 2008; Opdenacker et al., 2008; Arija et al., 2017; Baumann et al., 2015; Lv et al., 2014; Thankappan et al., 2018; Joshi et al., 2012; Azizi et al., 2013; Nishtar et al., 2007; Chandraratne et al., 2019; Fottrell et al., 2019; Ibrahim et al., 2016; Neupane et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2012; Van de Vijver et al., 2016); individual-based lifestyle counseling, coaching and motivational interviewing face-to-face or via phone calls (Carrasquillo et al., 2017; The Writing Group for the Activity Counseling Trial Research Group, 2001; Dubbert et al., 2002; Greaney et al., 2008; Hays et al., 2016; Resnicow et al., 2005; Østbye et al., 2009; Kegler et al., 2016; Davies et al., 2016; Bhopal et al., 2014; Mitchell et al., 2019; Saito et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2013; Lawton et al., 2008; Elley et al., 2003; Aittasalo et al., 2004; Lindström et al., 2003; Bóveda-Fontán et al., 2015; Baumann et al., 2015; Bo et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2018; Ibrahim et al., 2016; Neupane et al., 2018); motivational education materials and messages through electronically and/or print mails (Brownson et al., 2004; Campbell et al., 2002; The Writing Group for the Activity Counseling Trial Research Group, 2001; Greaney et al., 2008; Laska et al., 2016; Marcus et al., 2007; Napolitano et al., 2006; Resnicow et al., 2005; Kegler et al., 2016; Burke et al., 2003; Mitchell et al., 2019; Ramachandran et al., 2013; Fottrell et al., 2019); environmental and structural changes such as building PA facilities or workplace activities (Kubota et al., 2019; Luten et al., 2016; Lv et al., 2014; Anthony et al., 2015); and organizational such as increasing screening and coaching (Chao et al., 2012; Van de Vijver et al., 2016). The majority (62.5%) of the studies had an intervention duration of 12 to 24 months.

    • A decision-making model to optimize the impact of community-based health programs

      2021, Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Previous studies of community-based health programs have reported that programs are influential in changing the behavior of participants (Driscoll et al., 2008; Lv et al., 2014). In addition, several studies have reported that most community-based health programs do not produce significant changes in health outcomes for a ten year period (Brand et al., 2014; Kloek et al., 2006; Merzel and D'Afflitti, 2003; Wolfenden et al., 2014). Our study shows that significant changes in health outcomes are possible if the selected community-based health programs are kept running for about 20 years.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text