Table 2.
Limitations and strengths of the community readiness model (CRM) and community readiness tool (CRT) as discussed by the studies included in this review (n = 40).
| Characteristic | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Limitations of CRM | ||
| Not comprehensive enough | 3 | 7.5 |
| Development and reliance on key informants | 1 | 2.5 |
| None discussed | 36 | 90 |
| Limitations of CRT | ||
| High time and resource commitment in administration | 5 | 12.5 |
| Subjective scoring | 4 | 10 |
| Transient nature of readiness | 1 | 2.5 |
| Statistical power issues | 1 | 2.5 |
| Key informant bias | 1 | 2.5 |
| None discussed | 28 | 70 |
| * Strengths of the CRM | ||
| Provides tailored intervention strategies | 10 | 25 |
| Provides key contextual information | 8 | 20 |
| Theory based framework | 4 | 10 |
| Adaptive | 3 | 7.5 |
| Contributes to community development | 4 | 10 |
| None discussed | 14 | 35 |
| * Strengths of the CRT | ||
| Perceived methodological rigor | 10 | 25 |
| Built relationships/good starting point for intervention staff | 6 | 15 |
| Assessment of community prior to intervention | 5 | 12.5 |
| Strong qualitative data collected | 3 | 7.5 |
| Adaptive | 2 | 5 |
| Community ownership of tool | 1 | 2.5 |
| Easy scoring | 1 | 2.5 |
| Lack of outside experts needed | 1 | 2.5 |
| None Discussed | 22 | 55 |
* Because more than one response can be given, the total frequency and percentages exceed the number of papers.