Skip Navigation

Strengthen the Evidence for Maternal and Child Health Programs

Sign up for MCHalert eNewsletter

Evidence Tools
MCHbest. Well-Woman Visit.

MCHbest Logo

Strategy. Community-Based Group Education

Approach. Support community-based education that promotes annual preventive visits

Return to main MCHbest page >>

Overview. Engaging the community in meaningful ways, (as partners) helps build knowledge and creates public health interventions that are supported and sustainable.[1] Studies support community-based group education to promote annual preventive visits.[2,3,4,5,6]

Evidence. Moderate Evidence. Strategies with this rating are likely to work...

Access the peer-reviewed evidence through the MCH Digital Library or related evidence source.

Potential Data Sources. Data to support this strategy can be accessed through:

  • Evaluation data on educational activities and outreach efforts
  • Qualitative Feedback from focus groups
  • Healthcare utilization data

Outcome Components. This strategy has shown to have impact on the following outcomes (Read more about these categories):

  • Health and Health Behaviors/Behavior Change. This strategy improves individuals' physical and mental health and their adoption of healthy behaviors (e.g., healthy eating, physical activity).
  • Utilization. This strategy improves the extent to which individuals and communities use available healthcare services.
  • Timeliness of Care. This strategy promotes delivery of healthcare services in a timely manner to optimize benefits and prevent complications.

Detailed Outcomes. For specific outcomes related to each study supporting this strategy, access the peer-reviewed evidence and read the Intervention Results for each study.

Intervention Type. Health Teaching (Education and Promotion) (Read more about intervention types and levels as defined by the Public Health Intervention Wheel).

Intervention Level. Community-Focused

Examples from the Field. Access descriptions of ESMs that use this strategy or aligned components.

Sample ESMs. Here are sample ESMs to use as models for your own measures using the RBA framework (see The Role of Title V in Adapting Strategies).

Quadrant 1:
Measuring Quantity of Effort (“What/how much did we do?”)

  • Number of group education sessions conducted by Title V in community settings, incorporating relevant content and health literacy principles. (Measures the implementation of usable and tailored educational interventions)
  • Number of community health workers and peer educators trained (with support from Title V) to facilitate group education on the importance of annual preventive visits. (Measures capacity building efforts to support community-led interventions)

Quadrant 2:
Measuring Quality of Effort (“How well did we do it?”)

  • Percent of healthcare facilities in the jurisdiction that have implemented language access plans including professional medical interpretation services. (Measures the adoption of systemic approaches to language assistance)
  • Percent of program graduates who receive ongoing professional development training to adapt to the evolving needs of populations they serve. (Measures the commitment to workforce skills maintenance and improvement)

Quadrant 3:
Measuring Quantity of Effect (“Is anyone better off?”)

  • Number of community-driven needs assessments conducted to identify challenges and facilitators to accessing annual preventive visits. (Measures efforts to understand and address community-specific determinants of health)
  • Number of policy and systems change initiatives launched by community-based organizations to address structural challenges to annual preventive visits. (Measures the intervention's impact on supporting health-promoting environments and policies)
  • Number of women receiving their first annual preventive visit as a result of their participation in community-based group education. (Measures the intervention's success in engaging women who have additional needs in preventive care)
  • Number of community-based organizations reporting increased capacity to use data and evidence to inform their health promotion strategies and evaluate their impact on annual preventive visit rates. (Measures the intervention's effect on community partners' data-driven decision making and continuous improvement)

Quadrant 4:
Measuring Quality of Effect (“How are they better off?”)

  • Percent of Title V funding allocated to support community-based organizations serving neighborhoods and populations with the lowest rates of annual preventive visits. (Measures the distribution of investments based on need)
  • Percent of community-based organizations that have institutionalized annual preventive visit promotion as a core component of their mission and strategic plans. (Measures the long-term integration and prioritization of the intervention)
  • Percent increase in annual preventive visit rates among women in communities served by group education interventions, compared to baseline rates and statewide averages. (Measures the intervention's impact on reducing gaps and improving population health outcomes)
  • Percent of women who participate in community-based group education and report sustained engagement in annual preventive care over multiple years. (Measures the intervention's effectiveness in promoting long-term behavior change and preventive health habits)

Note. When looking at your ESMs, SPMs, or other strategies:

  1. Move from measuring quantity to quality.
  2. Move from measuring effort to effect.
  3. Quadrant 1 strategies should be used sparingly, when no other data exists.
  4. The most effective measurement combines strategies in all levels, with most in Quadrants 2 and 4.

Learn More. Read how to create stronger ESMs and how to measure ESM impact more meaningfully through Results-Based Accountability.

References

[1] Linda S. Sprague Martinez, Amanda J. Reich, Cecilia A. Flores, Uchenna J. Ndulue, Doug Brugge, David M. Gute & Flavia C. Peréa (2017) Critical Discourse, Applied Inquiry and Public Health Action with Urban Middle School Students: Lessons Learned Engaging Youth in Critical Service-Learning, Journal of Community Practice, 25:1, 68-89, DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2016.1269251 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10705422.2016.1269251.

[2] Brecher, A. C., Handorf, E. A., Tan, Y., Rhee, J., Kim, C., Ma, G. X., & Fang, C. Y. (2024). A community-based cervical cancer education and navigation program for Korean American women. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 15(3), 196-204.

[3] Ochoa, C. Y., Murphy, S. T., Frank, L. B., & Baezconde-Garbanati, L. A. (2020). Using a culturally tailored narrative to increase cervical cancer detection among Spanish-speaking Mexican-American women. Journal of Cancer Education, 35(4), 736-742.

[4] Mishra, S. I., Luce, P. H., & Baquet, C. R. (2009). Increasing pap smear utilization among Samoan women: results from a community based participatory randomized trial. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved, 20(2 Suppl), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.0.0160

[5] Byrd, T. L., Wilson, K. M., Smith, J. L., Coronado, G., Vernon, S. W., Fernandez-Esquer, M. E., Thompson, B., Ortiz, M., Lairson, D., & Fernandez, M. E. (2013). AMIGAS: a multicity, multicomponent cervical cancer prevention trial among Mexican American women. Cancer, 119(7), 1365–1372. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27926

[6] Gotay, C. C., Banner, R. O., Matsunaga, D. S., Hedlund, N., Enos, R., Issell, B. F., & DeCambra, H. (2000). Impact of a culturally appropriate intervention on breast and cervical screening among native Hawaiian women. Preventive medicine, 31(5), 529–537. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2000.0732

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.