Cheadle 2001.
| Methods |
Study design: cluster RCT Sampling frame:low‐income minority neighborhoods in Seattle Sampling method: random Collection method: school‐based student and parent interviews, key informant interviews among civic leaders Description of the community coalition: Minority Youth Health Project was launched in a partnership between University of Washington, Seattle Minority Health Coalition, Seattle King County Public Health Department, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, and Harborview Medical Center. 4 neighborhoods randomly selected; each formed a Community Action Board consisting of residents and a paid staff co‐ordinator and was given an $8000 annual budget to implement projects of their choosing to improve youth health and social opportunities and to increase neighborhood co‐operation. Limited information on coalition formal governance structures and processes or how they interacted with partnership agencies |
|
| Participants |
Communities: Seattle minority communities Country: USA Ages included in assessment: youth 11 to 13 and their parents Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: higher youth risks Intervention community (population size): 42,100 |
|
| Interventions |
Name of intervention: Seattle Minority Youth Health Project Theory: Community Empowerment Aim: to promote community mobilization and youth development strategies to prevent drug use, violence, and risky sexual activity Description of costs and resources: 4 paid community organizers at the 4 intervention sites. Salary amount not reported. Each of the 4 Community Action Boards received $8,000 to support community health promotion activities. Total federal funding received for the program reported Components of the intervention: Neighborhood projects included health fairs and community festivals, workshops, and training n deduction programs. About 2000 youth and adults participated in the projects across the 4 neighborhoods Start date: 1994 Duration: 50 months |
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes and measures: measures of community mobilization and satisfaction with neighborhood. Researchers did not report health outcomes in this paper, and no further publications with health outcome data Time points: baseline and follow‐up (student and parent surveys 1994 and 1997) |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not specified |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | No allocation concealment |
| Baseline outcome measurement similar | Low risk | Similar baseline outcome measurement |
| Baseline characteristics similar | Unclear risk | Baseline characteristics of groups not reported separately |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | No blinding |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | 30% attrition |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | No blinding |
| Protection against contamination | Unclear risk | Neighborhoods were in close proximity |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Only community mobilization outcomes reported |