Kelaher 2010.

Methods	Study design: controlled before‐after (independent samples) Sampling frame: residents of defined intervention and control areas age 18 and older Sampling method: quota samples in some areas, random in others  Collection method: Peer interviewers administered in‐person surveys to intervention sample participants at community‐based sites or at home (n = 1510). Control groups were administered a truncated version of the survey over the telephone by a market research company (n = 750) Description of the community coalition: Neighbourhood Renewal (NR) is described as a complex area‐based initiative, sponsored by the Victorian Department of Human Services, in which community and local stakeholders work with the government to prepare an area‐based local action plan and oversee its implementation. At the time of the evaluation, 19 NR sites were located within Victoria’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods. Each project site is staffed by a Place Manager, a Community Development Worker, and an Employment and Learning Co‐ordinator, who guide the governing Steering Committee, a coalition of local organizations and community members with 50% resident membership. Steering committee composition varies by site and may include, for example, representatives of local schools, businesses, municipal government, non‐profit agencies, community health centers, and housing authorities
Participants	Communities: disadvantaged and nearby neighborhoods from metropolitan regions in Victoria, Australia Country: Australia Ages included in assessment: 18+ Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: Sites were selected for intervention because when matched against the Victorian average, they showed poor performance on a range of indicators, including official unemployment rate, welfare status, average income, education, single‐parent families, crime rate, emergency admissions, child protection notifications, and concentration of public housing Intervention community (population size): 5 metropolitan NR sites in Victoria, Australia (target site populations range from 1000 to 20,000) Comparison community (population size): census districts proximate to NR sites and within the same local government area (population size not reported)
Interventions	Name of intervention: Neighbourhood Renewal Theory: described as “top‐down resource allocation and bottom‐up decision making” Aim: to reduce inequalities between the most disadvantaged neighborhoods and the rest of the state across a range of social, educational, and health outcomes through 6 action areas: (1) increasing community pride and participation, (2) enhancing housing and environment, (3) improving employment, learning, and local economic activity, (4) decreasing crime, (5) improving health and well‐being, and (6) increasing access to services Description of costs and resources: not reported Components of the intervention: Intervention activities vary by site. Health promotion projects have included community kitchens, support groups, community gardens, park redevelopment, walking groups, school obesity prevention programs, health fairs, and oral health initiatives for young children Start date: 2001 Duration: 8 years
Outcomes	Outcomes and measures: (1) self‐rated health (self‐reported); and (2) life satisfaction (self reported) Time points: first round (year 2 of intervention) and second round (year 4 to 5 of intervention)
Notes	Although described as a “before‐after” study, lacks true baseline measures. A larger‐scale evaluation including 15/19 Neighborhood Renewal sites has been published but lacks detailed results from each population regarding health outcomes Outcomes measured at population level Funding source: Victorian Department of Human Services
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Intervention not randomly assigned
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	No allocation concealment
Baseline outcome measurement similar	High risk	“Round 1” measures of self rated health and life satisfaction higher in control than intervention sample
Baseline characteristics similar	High risk	Intervention samples were significantly different from control samples on all counts reported: older, more likely to be male, unemployed, with a disability, living in public housing, and with a higher proportion of migrants from non‐English speaking countries than control samples
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Independent samples ensure no “loss to follow‐up.” Response rates not reported. Methods of collecting outcome data differed between intervention and control samples
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Protection against contamination	Unclear risk	Not commented on, but intervention and control areas were proximal
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Main outcomes reported
Other bias	High risk	Methods of collecting outcome data differed between intervention and control samples