6a. Perspectives on "Community" for Population Health Intervention  

If I asked you to describe your “community,” you might respond by identifying the city, town, or neighbourhood where you live. But geography is not the only way of defining a community. Communities can also evolve from a group of people with shared interests or characteristics, such as ethnicity, occupational status, or sexual orientation.1, 2

The most important defining characteristic of a “community” is a shared sense of affiliation or “belonging” among its members. Brenner and Manice (2011) reflect this concept in their definition of a community as

Four people planting flowers and plants in garden

a group of people united by at least one, but perhaps more than one, common characteristic, including geography, ethnicity, shared interests, values, experiences or traditions.

Brenner & Manice (2011), p. 883

As one of your required readings notes, three perspectives have guided a deeper understanding of the concept of community:

  1. The ecological systems perspective is particularly relevant for the study of autonomous geographic communities, given its focus on population characteristics (e.g., size, density), heterogeneity, physical environment, social organization/structure, and technological forces.2
  2. The social systems perspective examines organizations and networks operating within a given community, with a focus on the interactions of community subsystems (economic, political, etc.), both horizontally within the community and vertically in relation to other community subsystems.1, 2 The key practice implication of applying a social systems perspective is to identify where networks and organizations within a community need to be strengthened.4
  3. The creation of “cyber communities” with the advent of the internet and social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) has given rise to a virtual perspective focusing on interactions within and between individuals and “online” communities.4, 5

All of the “communities” defined according to the above characteristics are potential priority groups for population health initiatives. The challenge for practitioners is to determine the optimal strategy for “mobilizing” or “engaging” these communities. The range of community mobilization typologies described in the next section can help to guide appropriate decisions about community engagement.

References

  1. Fellin, P. (2001). Understanding American communities. In J. Rothman, J. Erlich, & J. Tropman (Eds.), Strategies of Community Intervention (5th ed., pp. 118–133). Itasca, Illinois: Peacock.
  2. Wallerstein, N., Minkler, M., Carter-Edwards, L., Avila, M., & Sánchez, V. (2015). Improving health through community engagement, community organization, and community building.” In K. Glanz, B.K. Rimer & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health Behavior: Theory, Research and Practice (5th ed., pp. 277–301). San Francisco: Wiley.
  3. Brenner, B. & Manice, M. (2011). Community engagement in children’s environmental health research. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 78(1), 85–97.
  4. O’Mara-Eves, A., Brunton, G., McDaid, D., Oliver, S., Kavanagh, J., Jamal, F., Matosevic, T., Harden, A., & Thomas, J. (2013). Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: A systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis. Public Health Research 1(4). London, UK: NHS National Institute for Health Research.
  5. Herbert, S. (2004). Harnessing the power of the internet for advocacy and organizing. In M. Minkler (Ed.), Community Organizing and Community Building for Health (2nd ed., pp. 331–345). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers.