Skip to main content
Download PDF

Do health education initiatives assist socioeconomically disadvantaged populations? A systematic review and meta-analyses

BMC Public Health volume 23, Article number: 453 (2023) Cite this article

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.

Peer Review reports

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.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in Meta-analyses (n = 16)
Full size table
Table 2 Characteristics of studies not included in Meta-analyses
Full size table

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].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias summary

Full size image

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.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The effectiveness of educational interventions at improving moderate intensity physical activity outcomes in socio-economically disadvantaged populations: random effects meta-analysis

Full size image

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.

Fig. 4
figure 4

The effectiveness of educational interventions at improving cancer screening outcomes in socio-economically disadvantaged populations: random effects meta-analysis

Full size image

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.

Table 3 Intervention characteristics and effectiveness
Full size table

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marmot M, Bell R. Social determinants and non-communicable diseases: time for integrated action. BMJ. 2019;364: l251.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365(9464):1099–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marmot M, Bell R. Fair society, healthy lives. Public Health. 2012;126:S4–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lorenc T, Oliver K. Adverse effects of public health interventions: a conceptual framework. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(3):288–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

  17. World Health Organisation Constitution. https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/constitution. Accessed 1 Aug 2021.

  18. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Short SE, Mollborn S. Social determinants and health behaviors: conceptual frames and empirical advances. Curr Opin Psychol. 2015;5:78–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

  21. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Sci. 2001;16(2):101–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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).

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Nakre PD, Harikiran A. Effectiveness of oral health education programs: A systematic review. J Int Soc Prev Commun Dentist. 2013;3(2):103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

  53. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 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).

  70. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 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.

  82. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  92. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. 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).

  101. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. 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.

  114. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. 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.

  118. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 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).

  120. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. 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.

  123. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. 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.

  129. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3. Biostat, Englewood, NJ 2013.

  130. 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.

  131. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. IIMPACT in Health, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia

    E. L. Karran, A. R. Grant, L. K. Wiles, R. Shala & G. L. Moseley

  2. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal, Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    H. Lee

  3. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    H. Lee

  4. School of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    S. J. Kamper

  5. Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District, Penrith, NSW, Australia

    S. J. Kamper

  6. University of Newcastle, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    C. M. Williams

  7. Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, New Lambton, NSW, Australia

    C. M. Williams

  8. Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    L. K. Wiles

  9. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    L. K. Wiles

  10. Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Prishtina, Prishtina, Kosovo

    R. Shala

  11. Sir H. N. Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India

    C. V. Poddar

  12. Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    T. Astill

Authors
  1. E. L. Karran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. R. Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. J. Kamper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. M. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. K. Wiles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. Shala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. C. V. Poddar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. T. Astill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. G. L. Moseley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Correspondence to E. L. Karran.

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.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15329-z

Keywords

  • Health education
  • Socio-economic disadvantage
  • Systematic review
  • Social determinants of health
  • Health promotion

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us