Issues of participation, ownership and

empowerment in a community
development programme: tackling
smoking in a low-income area in
Scotland
1.
2.
3.
4.

Deborah Ritchie1,
Odette Parry2,
Wendy Gnich2 and
Steve Platt2
+ Author Affiliations

Department of Sociology, Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, UK and 2Research Unit in
Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, UK
Address for correspondence: Deborah Ritchie, Department of Sociology, Queen Margaret University College, Clerwood Terrace,
Edinburgh EH12 8TS, UK, E-mail: dritchie@qmuc.ac.uk
1.

1.

Next Section

Abstract
Founded on community development principles and practice, the Breathing Space initiative aimed to
produce a significant shift in community norms towards non-toleration and non-practice of smoking in a
low-income area in Edinburgh, Scotland. The effectiveness of Breathing Space was evaluated using a
quasi-experimental design, which incorporated a process evaluation in order to provide a description of the
development and implementation of the intervention. Drawing on qualitative data from the process
evaluation, this paper explores the varied and sometimes competing understandings of the endeavour held
by those implementing the intervention. The paper examines the principles that underpin health promotion
in the community setting, particularly the concepts of ownership, empowerment and participation, and
their differential interpretation and employment by participants. The data illustrate how these varied
understandings had implications for the joint planning and implementation of Breathing Space objectives.
In addition, the different understandings raise questions about the appropriateness and viability of utilizing
community development approaches in this context.

Key words

community development

empowerment

process evaluation

smoking
Previous SectionNext Section

INTRODUCTION

Current health promotion policy and practice places a high value on community development work
(Robinson and Elliott, 2000) because it aims to enable communities to identify problems, develop
solutions and facilitate change (Blackburn, 2000). The overt ideological agenda of community
development is to remedy inequalities and to achieve better and fairer distribution of resources for
communities (Tones and Tilford, 2001). This is achieved ideally through participatory processes and
bottom-up planning (Bracht and Tsouros, 1990; Bernstein et al., 1994;Israel et al., 1994; Labonte,
1994; Robertson and Minkler, 1994; Robinson and Elliott, 2000; Smith et al., 2001).
Empowering communities to have more say in the shaping of policies influencing health represents a break
with earlier traditions of public health associated with top-down social engineering (Beresford and Croft,
1993; Petersen and Lupton, 1996). However, community development means different things to different
people and, as we shall see, can operate on different levels (Arnstein, 1971; Brager and Specht,
1973;Tones and Tilford, 2001). Community development has, for example, been linked to community
organization, community-based initiatives, community mobilization, community capacity building and
citizen participation. There is, however, a common understanding of core principles, which inform
community development work (Bracht and Tsouros, 1990; Robinson and Elliott, 2000; Smith et al., 2001),
two of which are participation and empowerment. These principles can and are, however, operationalized
differentially in different types of community development work.
The concept of community participation has proved to be more complex than was originally envisaged by
the early World Health Organization (WHO) health promotion strategies (WHO, 1978; Rifkin,
1986; WHO, 1986;Rifkin et al., 1988; Rifkin, 1995; Labonte, 1998; Zakus and Lysack, 1998;Laverack and
Wallerstein, 2001). Despite consensus that community participation should engender active processes
involving choice, and the potential for implementing that choice, implementation has proven difficult
(Zakus and Lysack, 1998). For example, when formal health services adopt an empowerment framework,
their formal structures are not necessarily conducive to participation. (Rifkin, 1990; Labonte, 1998;Zakus
and Lysack, 1998). Although it is commonly agreed that appropriate leadership and effective
organizational structures are crucial to successful community participation (Laverack and Wallerstein,
2001), this requires a political climate that nurtures and facilitates the approach (Labonte, 1998;Zakus and
Lysack, 1998).
Tensions can also occur where community participation is engaged for disease prevention purposes rather
than following a bottom-up, community-defined agenda (Rifkin, 1990; Asthana and Oostvogels,
1996;Labonte, 1998; Zakus and Lysack, 1998). It has been argued, however, that these approaches are not
necessarily incompatible and that both positions can be accommodated (Rifkin, 1990). If, it is suggested,
community participation is seen as a process rather than an intervention this will affect the value placed on
different types of outcomes (Rifkin, 1995; Labonte, 1998; Laverack and Wallerstein, 2001).
However, there are many different levels at which the community may participate and at one extreme this
may amount to little more than tokenism (Labonte, 1994; Petersen and Lupton, 1996). Moreover,
communities do not have the same access as local authority organizations and government agencies to
those resources enabling them to define and set the agendas and participate on an equal footing (Labonte,
1994;Wallerstein and Bernstein, 1994; Blackburn, 2000).
The concept of empowerment has also assumed different meanings within the context of communitybased health promotion work (Israel et al., 1994; Labonte, 1994; Robertson and Minkler, 1994; Laverack,
2001;Smith et al., 2001). For example, empowerment may be at either or both the individual and
community level (Bracht and Tsouros, 1990; Bernsteinet al., 1994; Israel et al., 1994; Labonte,
1994; Robertson and Minkler, 1994; Robinson and Elliott, 2000; Smith et al., 2001), and tension may exist
within community development practice between the two levels (Robertson and Minkler,
1994; Wallerstein and Bernstein, 1994). Whereas individual empowerment might be concerned with
individuals gaining mastery over their lives, community empowerment focuses on the social contexts
where empowerment takes place [(Wallerstein and Bernstein, 1994), p. 142]. While it has been suggested
that the two levels are interdependent, the aims of each may differ (Robertson and Minkler, 1994) and this
may impede practice (Laverack and Wallerstein, 2001).
Community development has been used in several major UK heart-health initiatives, reflecting the
centrality of the approach within the New Public Health strategy (Robinson and Elliott, 2000). There is,
however, limited evidence of its overall success (Farquhar et al., 1990; Luepker et al., 1994;Carleton et al.,
1995; COMMIT Research Group, 1995; Goodman et al., 1995; Shelley et al., 1995; Brownson et al.,
1996; Baxter et al., 1997;Secker-Walker et al., 2000; Hancock et al., 2001). A major difficulty in assessing
effectiveness of different programmes arises because communities utilizing this approach tend to interpret
and implement aspects of community development deemed most appropriate to their specific needs

(Buchanan, 1994; Robinson and Elliott, 2000). Because community development programmes are not
operationalized in a consistent way it is difficult to compare like with like.
In order to understand better how these programmes perform, it is necessary to examine in depth how the
community development approach is rolled out within the local context (Robertson and Minkler,
1994;Wallerstein and Bernstein, 1994). To this end we draw on the evaluation of Breathing Space, a
community-based smoking intervention in an area of low income. The paper examines the development
and execution of the Breathing Space programme through participants' understandings about community
development and the translation of these understandings into health promotion practice.
Previous SectionNext Section

METHODS
An independently funded study was undertaken to evaluate the Breathing Space initiative using a quasiexperimental research design. In addition to before and after surveys, a thorough qualitative process
evaluation was carried out which aimed to document development and implementation of the intervention
and to assess threats to the validity of the research design. This paper draws upon in-depth interviews
undertaken as part of the study's process evaluation.
The interviews

Fifty-six semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with programme participants. These
comprised eight interviews with managers from the three main partner organizations, seven with the
project coordinators, 28 with intervention team members, 11 with subgroup members and two with
community development workers, with responsibility for smoking cessation services, employed by one of
the partnership organizations. The interviews, which were recorded, were held at key points across the
course of the project (audit and planning, project design and development, and implementation stages).
They explored respondents' understandings and experiences of intervention programmes at different levels
(overall programme organization and structure, individual projects, and personal roles and
responsibilities).
Analysis

The interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically with the assistance of qualitative software
(NUD*IST). Three members of the research team developed a detailed coding scheme. Some of the
themes/categories agreed by the team related directly to the aims of the evaluation and were identified
before the interviews, while others emerged through exploration of the interview data. The robustness of
all the categories was tested by reference to the individual cases, the conditions and contexts of which were
compared and contrasted. All three researchers were involved in coding the data. In order to ensure
congruence between coding styles, different researchers coded a random selection of transcripts,
discrepancies were reviewed and agreement of the final coding scheme was negotiated.
Data extract identifiers

In the Results section, extracts from the data can be attributed to representatives from the different
respondent groups. Identifying numbers for each extract are prefixed by a letter which can be interpreted as
follows: M indicates managers, I indicates intervention team members, YS indicates those working at
subgroup level in the Young Persons setting, C identifies those in the Community Setting and PC
identifies those in the Primary Care setting.
The origins of Breathing Space

Prior to Breathing Space there were two national anti-smoking initiatives supporting smaller scale projects
using the community development ethos and approach in Scotland. These were the Women, Low Income
and Smoking Initiative and the Tobacco and Inequalities Project (Amos et al., 1999; Barlow et al.,
1999; Gaunt-Richardson et al., 1999; McKie et al., 1999). Breathing Space, however, was the first
community-wide development programme on smoking in Scotland.
Breathing Space was a community health promotion initiative, which aimed to produce a significant shift
in community norms towards non-smoking in a low-income area in Edinburgh. The community (Wester
Hailes) was unusual in that local community groups had identified smoking as a priority health concern,
which they had begun to address through the implementation of no-smoking policies and the provision of

support for smokers who wanted to quit. The Breathing Space programme was initiated by the local health
policy group the health subgroup of an Urban Regeneration Partnership which approached their local
health board for help in tackling the high prevalence of smoking in Wester Hailes. The aim of the
programme was to capitalize on local knowledge and encourage local involvement in the development of a
programme of activities that would create a supportive environment to enable local people to make healthy
choices. Although focusing on four main health promotion settings (community, primary care, youth and
schools, and workplace), Breathing Space set out to bridge these settings and create a health promoting
environment across the wider community.
Breathing Space was organized on three levels. On level one, an intervention team, comprising
representatives from the partner organizations, was set up to oversee planning and implementation. This
alliance formed a steering committee, which supported settings-based subgroups (level two), whose remit
it was to take project objectives forward. Subgroup membership included the main intervention team and
other community workers with particular expertise or interest in that setting. The third level comprised
others who worked or lived in the community, and who were involved in the implementation of specific
intervention activities.
Previous SectionNext Section

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Participation and ownership

Respondents felt that each of the Breathing Space partners should have a different yet equal role to play in
the development and execution of the programme. The role of Wester Hailes Urban Regeneration
Partnership (WHURP), for example, was described by a (WHURP) manager as: facilitating and taking
forward some of the actual interventions in specific settings where there's a health promotion specialist
(health board employee) working, whereas the role of the health agency was described as taking forward
the community's aspects, making sure that the project is in line with community defined needs (M5).
In practice, parity of participation was an issue for many respondents. Hence, the manager quoted above
said It can't just be [us] providing the support and doing the work (M5). Most concern about parity of
input, however, centred upon Lothian Health Board (LHB), which was singled out by many respondents as
being too prominent in both the development and the implementation of Breathing Space. The proportion
of health board representatives (nine out of 12 at one point) on the intervention team and the heightened
profile of health board workers throughout the project contributed to the view of some respondents that the
programme was developed effectively by one organization (I8).
Concern about the over-representation of the health board was matched by at least equal, if not greater
concern about a perceived under-representation of the local community organizations:I can remember one
meeting where a senior member of health board staff was talking about we need to get the community
involved, the community involved, but what she was talking about were health visitors: the pharmacists,
the local shops that is not a community. (I8)Hence, although Breathing Space was conceived as a
community development project, there was a lack of agreement among the partners about what community
participation meant and who should be involved.
Participation and ownership were not only issues at an organizational/agency level, but also at the level of
their membership. Commitment held by managers did not necessarily reflect the commitment of members.
The heightened presence of health board workers did not appear to arise from any intention on their behalf
to dominate the Breathing Space programme. Indeed, a senior manager from the health board described the
initial ambivalence of some health board worker as a function of their lack of involvement in the early
stages of the project:To start with there wasn't real ownership, there was a lot of phew, I've got to do this
now whereas now this is a piece of work and its going forward and I'm a bit concerned about how I'm
going to fit it in. (M1)Because some programme workers were not privy to the initial decision-making
processes through which the programme evolved, the level of enthusiasm or perceived ownership
associated with successful community development work was forfeited.
Smoking as a priority

Many respondents felt that Breathing Space was not a community venture and, related to this, that smoking
was not a community-defined priority. Views on this issue differed according to the organization that
respondents represented and the role they played in the initiation of the programme. Representatives of the
community health agency felt that the community had identified smoking as a priority because smoking
had been central to the community-based work from which Breathing Space had evolved:We were the core
of the project before Breathing Space came into being. It was built on the work that we and the health
project did. The whole thing evolved out of our work. (I8)Respondents, such as I1 from the Health Board,
who were key players in the initiation and early development of the programme, also felt that Breathing
Space had evolved in line with the principles of community development, describing smoking as:
located in the specific heart of the community. It's certainly located in the structure of the partnership. I'm
aware that it comes from the bottom up. (I1)
In contrast, those respondents who did not represent community groups, and were not privy to the early
discussions from which Breathing Space evolved, were less certain that smoking constituted a communitydefined priority. From the perspective of a WHURP representative, for example, other issues were
described as more pressing: It's always been drugs and alcohol that have been its primary issues (I8). The
health board workers drew on their experiences of working in the area to identify issues they saw as
important. For example, a health board young person specialist said: we're supposed to be talking about
smoking in the 3rd year, and some of the girls start slagging another girl off about having had sex for the
first time the night before. And I would say that is a bigger issue as far as they are concerned than
smoking. (I5)Similarly, YS2, a youth agency worker, felt that smoking was not high on the agenda of
young people:I think in a lot of ways it's an adult issue. You know what I mean? It's coming from adults
it's not coming from young people I don't think they see it as a huge issue. (YS2)
Some respondents felt that the focus on smoking was ethically problematic. For example, I13 (an
intervention team member and health board worker) felt that targeting smoking contributed further to
people's already disadvantaged lives. She described smokers as people who maybe have lots of needs,
have complex needs and smoking as their little bit of pleasure (I13).
Some respondents reported difficulties in selling the programme to community gatekeepers. I16, when
describing the problems she encountered when trying to get general practitioners on board, said: it's not
a particularly nice feeling to be having to work so hard to sell something You get home and say to
yourself I'm not peddling drugs here, I'm trying to do something good. (I6)
Empowerment and service delivery

Respondents' opinions differed as to whether Breathing Space should focus upon broad health issues or
more specifically upon smoking behaviour. Those taking the broader view talked, for example about
looking at the underlying issues and realising that smoking in a lot of cases is a symptom rather than the
issue itself (I5, health board). These respondents also tended to talk about the the health of the local
community (I10) rather than the health of individuals. I2, from the health board intervention team, for
example, described her understanding of the programme thus: the main idea of it was to look at smoking
in a community and in a wider context [as opposed to] the usual sort of health prepared stuff which is
about individual behaviour and so on. (I2)
Most respondents acknowledged that smoking cessation work is traditionally focused at the individual
level. Indeed, for many, one to one was a way of working with which they were most familiar and felt
most comfortable. PS4, a health care professional in the primary care setting, for example, described the
programme work as:going down the different channels with people who are identified as smoking if they
are wanting to either stop smoking or to reduce their smoking habits. (PS4)Targeting individual smoking
behaviour was not necessarily seen as incompatible with the aims of community development work. Some,
for example, felt that increasing access to cessation materials and support would lead ultimately to a
change in perceptions on smoking in [the area] (PS3) and help overall to reduce the number of people
that smoke (I13).
The programme was also affected by institutional constraints experienced by those working within the
different partner organizations. Some implementers felt they were expected to demonstrate the type of
tangible outcomes associated with direct action about smoking targeted at the individual level. For
example, the Breathing Space coordinator said:As time has gone on there's been a certain amount of
pressure to do things practical things. And they tended to be about smoking, directly about smoking.

(R14)Given the types of outcomes traditionally expected of health promotion, the community development
approach presented some difficulties for respondents. Some, for example, were uncomfortable with, and
resistant to, the idea of project objectives that were shaped by the community agenda and that could evolve
over time. A health board worker involved in the conception of the programme described the dilemma this
posed for some workers:People are probably more used to working in a way that's erm you know
you do this and then you do this and then you do this. Whereas what we are trying to do is to allow a
process to emerge and what people are finding difficult is being diffuse very difficult, the anxiety is
enormous. (I1)RI1 felt, however, that workers who persevered despite reservations could reach a better
understanding of the enterprise, over time:You know, it's working quite slowly for people , really its like
pennies beginning to drop, and people realising yes that's what it is about. (I1)Others, such as I2, a health
board employee, described her uncertainty about the unfolding nature of the endeavour:It's very
amorphous because it's a developmental project. That's the nature of the beast I'm not very confident
about doing this. It's not knowing so shapeless and what's going to happen and then it comes
together?In addition, although those representing the community based agencies were more likely to be
familiar with community development work, not all of their members were similarly experienced. For
example, I12, a recently recruited health agency employee, expressed a fixed understanding that Breathing
Space aimed to Get mainly youngsters and teenagers to stop smoking to improve their health (I12).
This raises two important points. First, not everybody, and particularly those working within the statutory
agency, were familiar and/or comfortable taking a community development approach. I5, for example, said
Well to start with I didn't have a clue what the principles were (I5). Equally, those working at the
community level were not necessarily familiar with the theoretical principles underpinning their work:
[It's] certainly difficult because there is an awful lot more theoretical discussion around, and we are very
much on the practical side here (I9).
Secondly, even where workers were knowledgeable about, or gained familiarity with these precepts, they
did not find it easy to translate this knowledge into practice. Ways of working associated with the different
partner organizations/agencies were understood by respondents to be fundamentally incompatible: there
are tensions in doing community development if you are a statutory organization it doesn't quite fit,
because on one level it's home grown, it's grass roots development, it's power is located in the community
and then you are there as a totally different, like well quite a powerful structure with certain ways of
working. (I1)Unsurprisingly, respondents representing the health agency described themselves as more
appropriately placed and better qualified to support a community-based approach: we have a lot more
facilities and support services to offer It's not saying we are better, we've just got more on offer in terms
of alternatives and stuff than say the GPs and the practice nurses. (CS1)
Previous SectionNext Section

CONCLUSION
Findings from the process evaluation indicated a disjunction between respondents' conceptions of
Breathing Space as a community development programme, and the translation of the programme into
actual practice. The data suggest this is a function of a combination of factors, in which participation,
ownership and empowerment play major roles.
That the partner organizations were felt to be represented unequally left many respondents, particularly
those from the community agencies, feeling disempowered. While the community partners felt entitled to
programme ownership, in that Breathing Space was seen as developing out of their previous work on
smoking in Wester Hailes, the health board was seen as the dominating and more powerful partner.
This was perceived as particularly problematic, as of all the partnership groups, the health board was
understood to be the least sympathetic or amenable to the aims of community development and the least
able to accommodate ways of operationalizing the programme necessary for its success. In particular, a
narrow focus of the health board on the health of individuals and on smoking behaviour per se was, given
the community development aims, felt to place inappropriate expectations and constraints upon
programme outcomes.
The different approaches, which appeared to index the respective positions of the community organizations
and the health board, reflected two separate discourses operating within the programme simultaneously.
The first favoured the concept of community development and empowerment, while the second favoured

prevention of unhealthy lifestyles (and to a lesser extent the promotion of individual empowerment). That
these discourses were seen as mutually reinforcing rather than incompatible by many respondents,
reinforces a sense of their reluctance to grasp wholeheartedly the radical agenda and modus operandi of
community development work.
At an even more fundamental level, the perceived low level of input from actual community members, and
a lack of consensus about what constituted the community, raised a question mark over whether or not
smoking was a community-defined priority in Wester Hailes. Whereas those who were involved in the
development of the programme and/or had experience of community-based no-smoking health promotion
work saw smoking as a community issue, others did not. While White Papers on tobacco and public health
(Secretary of State for Health, 1999; Secretary of State for Scotland, 1999) demonstrate government
identification of smoking as an important contributor to social inequalities in health (Graham, 1998), this
may not necessarily be reflected at a community level. Reticence expressed by some Breathing Space
workers towards the issue of smoking reflected their concern that other problems experienced by the
community were more pressing. These views resonate with a body of sociological findings, which indicate
how the social circumstances of disadvantaged lives play an important part in sustaining smoking
(Laurieret al., 2000). That is, smoking is portrayed as one mechanism that smokers use to cope with living
and caring in disadvantaged circumstances (Graham, 1987, 1993; Gaunt-Richardson et al., 1999).
However, it is important to note that neither the views of the community organizations nor the health board
can be seen as reflecting the position of community members, because of the very minimal presence of this
group in the Breathing Space programme.
In conclusion, although current policy may celebrate rhetoric of community development and partnership,
the data illustrate how the reality may be difficult to deliver, especially for those working in the statutory
sector. This is a finding supported in the literature (Robertson and Minkler, 1994). Our findings also
illustrate the importance of clarifying the respective roles and inputs of organizations/agencies involved in
partnership working. In particular, it is crucial to recognize that not all partners will have equal input into
the programme and that the nature of that input will be quite different. For example, community-based
agencies might usefully focus upon their own role in engaging with the own local community and then
communicating effectively within the actual structures of decision making. It is very important for the
success of programmes that the relationships between partnership organizations, and the structures and
processes of decision making, are explicitly acknowledged. Certainly, this is crucial for ensuring that
respective organizations and agencies feel that they have ownership of the programme. The study has
highlighted not only the importance of community ownership, but also the importance of ensuring that
members of organizations signed up to the programme are involved at an early stage of the programme's
development.
Previous SectionNext Section

Acknowledgments
The evaluation research on which this paper draws was funded by the Department of Health. The Research
Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change is jointly funded by the Scottish Executive Health Department and
the Health Education Board for Scotland. All opinions expressed in the article are those of the authors and
not necessarily those of the funders.

Oxford University Press 2004. All rights reserved

Previous Section

REFERENCES
1.

Amos, A. Gaunt-Richardson, P., McKie, L. and Barlow, J. (1999) Addressing smoking and health among women living on
low income 111. Ayr Barnados Homelessness Service and Dundee Women's Aid. Health Education Journal, 58, 329340.

2.

Arnstein, S. R. (1971) Eight rungs on the ladder of citizen participation. In Cahn, S. E. and Passett, B. A. (eds) Citizen
Participation: Effecting Community Change. Praeger Publications, New York.

3.

Asthana, S. and Oostvogels, R. (1996) Community participation in HIV prevention problems and prospects for community
based strategies among female sex workers in Madras. Social Science and Medicine, 45, 133148.

4.

Barlow, J., Gaunt-Richardson, P., Amos, A. and Mckie, L. (1999) Addressing smoking and health among women living on
low income 11. TAPS Tiree: a dance and drama group for rural community development. Health Education
Journal, 58, 321328.

5.

Baxter, A., Milner, P., Wilson, K., Leaf, M., Nicholl, J., Freeman, J. et al. (1997). A cost effective, community based heart
health promotion project in England: prospective comparative study. British Medical Journal, 315, 582585.
Abstract/FREE Full Text

6.

Beresford, P. and Croft, S. (1993) Citizen Involvement: a Practical Guide for Change. Macmillan, Basingstoke.

7.

Bernstein, E., Wallerstein, N., Braithwaite, R., Gutierrez, L., Labonte, R. and Zimmerman, A. (1994) Empowerment
forum: a dialogue between guest Editorial Board members. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 281294.
MedlineWeb of Science

8.

Blackburn, J. (2000) Understanding Paulo Freire: reflections on the origins, concepts and possible pitfalls of his
educational approach. Community Development Journal, 35,315.
Abstract

9.

Bracht, N. and Tsouros, A. (1990) Principles and strategies of effective community participation. Health Promotion
International, 5, 199208.
Abstract/FREE Full Text

10.

Brager, C. and Specht, H. (1973) Community Organising. Columbia University Press, New York.

11.

Brownson, R. C., Smith, C. A., Pratt, M., Mack, N. E., Jackson-Thompson, J., Dean, C. G. et al. (1996) Preventing
cardiovascular disease through community-based risk reduction: The Bootheel Heart Health Project. American Journal of
Public Health, 86,206213.
MedlineWeb of Science

12.

Buchannan, D. R. (1994) Reflections on the relationship between theory and practice. Health Education Research Theory
and Practice, 19, 273284.

13.

Carleton, R. A., Lasater, T. M., Assaf, A. R., Feldman, H. A., McKinlay, S. and Pawtucket Heart Health Program Writing
Group (1995) The Pawtucket Heart Health Program: community changes in cardiovascular risk factors and projected
disease risk.American Journal of Public Health, 85, 777785.
MedlineWeb of Science

14.

COMMIT Research Group (1995) Community intervention trial for smoking cessation (COMMIT): I. Cohort results from
a four-year community intervention. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 183192.
MedlineWeb of Science

15.

Farquhar, J. W., Fortmann, S. P., Flora, J. A., Barr Taylor, C., Haskell, W. L., Williams, P. T. et al. (1990) Effects of
communitywide education on cardiovascular disease risk factors: The Stanford Five-City Project. Journal of the American
Medical Association,264, 359365.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science

16.

Gaunt-Richardson, P., Amos, A. and Moore, M. (1999) Women, low income and smoking: developing community-based
initiatives. Health Education Journal, 57, 303312.

17.

Goodman, R. M., Wheeler, F. C. and Lee, P. R. (1995) Evaluation of the Heart to Heart Project: lessons from a
community-based chronic disease prevention project.American Journal of Health Promotion, 9, 443455.
MedlineWeb of Science

18.

Graham, H. (1987) Women's smoking and family health. Social Science and Medicine, 25, 4756.
19. Graham, H. (1993) When Life's a Drag: Women, Smoking and Disadvantage. HMSO, London.

20.

Graham, H. (1998) Promoting health against inequality: using research to identify targets for interventiona case study of
women and smoking. Health Education Journal,57, 292302.

21.

Hancock, L., Sanson-Fisher, R., Clin, M., Perkins, J., McClintock, A., Howley, P. et al. (2001) Effect of a community
action program on adult quit smoking rates in rural Australian towns: The CART project. Preventive Medicine, 32, 118
127.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science

22.

Israel, B., Checkoway, B., Schulz, A. and Zimmerman, M. (1994) Health education and community empowerment:
conceptualizing and measuring perceptions of individual, organizational and community control. Health Education
Quarterly, 21, 149170.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science

23.

Labonte, R. (1994) Health Promotion and Empowerment: reflections on professional practice. Health Education
Quarterly, 21, 253268.
MedlineWeb of Science

24.

Labonte, R. (1998) A Community Development Approach to Health Promotion: a Background Paper on Practice Tensions,
Strategic Models and Accountability Requirements for Health Authority Work on the Broad Determinants of Health.
Health Education Board of Scotland and Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh.

25.

Laurier, E., McKie, L. and Goodwin, N. (2000) Daily and lifecourse contexts of smoking. Sociology of Health and
Illness, 22, 289309.
CrossRef

26.

Laverack, G. (2001) An identification and interpretation of the organizational aspects of community

empowerment. Community Development Journal, 36, 134145.
Abstract

27.

Laverack, G. and Wallerstein, N. (2001) Measuring community empowerment: a fresh look at organizational
domains. Health Promotion International, 16, 179185.
Abstract/FREE Full Text

28.

Luepker, R. V., Murray, D. M., Jacobs, D. R., Mittlemark, M. B., Bracht, N., Carlaw, R. et al. (1994). Community
education for cardiovascular disease prevention: risk factor changes in the Minnesota Heart Health Program. American
Journal of Public Health, 84,13831393.
MedlineWeb of Science

29.

McKie, L., Gaunt-Richardson, P., Barlow, J. and Amos, A. (1999)Addressing smoking and health among women living on
low income 1. Dean's Community Club: a mental-health project. Health Education Journal, 58, 311320.

30.

Petersen, A. and Lupton, D. (1996) The New Public Health: Health and Self in the Age of Risk. Sage, London.

31.

Rifkin, S. (1986) Lessons from community participation in health programmes.Health Policy and Planning, 1, 240249.
Abstract/FREE Full Text

32.

Rifkin, S. B. (1990) Community Participation in Maternal and Child Health/Family Planning Programmes. World Health
Organization, Geneva.

33.

Rifkin, S. (1995) Paradigms Lost: Toward a new understanding of community participation in health programmes. Acta
Tropica, 61, 7292.

34.

Rifkin, A. B., Muller, F. and Bichmann, W. (1988) Primary health care: on measuring participation Social Science and
Medicine, 9, 931940.
CrossRef

35.

Robertson, A. and Minkler, M. (1994) New health promotion movement. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 295312.
MedlineWeb of Science

36.

Robinson, K. L and Elliott, S. J. (2000) The practice of community development approaches in heart health
promotion Health Education Research Theory and Practice,15, 219231.
Abstract/FREE Full Text

37.

Secker-Walker, R. H., Flynn, B. S., Solomon, L. J., Skelly, J. M., Dorwaldt, A. L. and Ashikaga, T. (2000) Helping women
quit smoking: results of a community intervention program. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 940946.
MedlineWeb of Science

38.

Secretary of State for Health (1999) Smoking Kills. The Stationery Office, London.

39.

Secretary of State for Scotland (1999) Towards a Healthier Scotland. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh.

40.

Shelley, E., Daly, L., Collins, C., Christie, M., Conroy, R., Gibney, N. et al. (1995) Cardiovascular risk factor changes in
the Kilkenny Health Project: a community health promotion programme. European Heart Journal, 16, 752760.
Abstract/FREE Full Text

41.

Smith, N., Littlejohns, L. B. and Thompson, D. (2001) Shaking out the cobwebs: insights into community capacity and its
relation to health outcomes. Community Development Journal, 36, 3041.
Abstract

42.

Tones, K. and Tilford, S. (2001) Health Promotion: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Equity. Nelson Thornes Ltd, Cheltenham,
UK.

43.

Wallerstein, N. and Bernstein, E. (1994) Introduction to community empowerment, participatory education and
health. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 141148.
MedlineWeb of Science

44.

WHO (1978) Alma Ata Declaration. WHO, Geneva.

45.

WHO (1986) Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Journal of Health Promotion, 1,4.

46.

Zakus, J. D. L. and Lysack, C. L. (1998) Revisiting community participation Health Policy Planning, 13, 112.
Abstract/FREE Full Text