Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eyre, R.
Right arrow Articles by Gauld, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eyre, R.
Right arrow Articles by Gauld, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Promotion International, Vol. 18, No. 3, 189-197, September 2003
© Oxford University Press 2003

Community participation in a rural community health trust: the case of Lawrence, New Zealand

Rachel Eyre and Robin Gauld

Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Address for correspondence: Robin Gauld, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand, E-mail: r.gauld{at}otago.ac.nz

Since the mid-1980s, the New Zealand health sector has been in a state of continual change. The most radical changes were in the early-1990s, with the creation of an internal market system for public health care delivery. Rural health services, seen to be unviable, were given the option of establishing themselves as ‘community trusts’, owning and running their own services. Community trusts have since become a feature of rural health care in New Zealand. An expectation was that community trusts would facilitate community participation. This article reports on a study of participation in a rural community health trust. The ‘pentagram model’ of Rifkin and coworkers, with its five dimensions of participation—needs assessment, leadership, resource mobilization, management and organization—was applied. High levels of participation were found across each of these dimensions. The research revealed additional dimensions that could be added to the framework, including ‘sustainability of participation’, ‘equity in participation’ and ‘the dynamic socio-political context’. In this regard, it supports recent theoretical work by Laverack (2001) and Laverack and Wallerstein (2001). Finally, the article comments on the future of rural health trusts in the current round of health sector restructuring.

Key words: community participation; measurement; New Zealand; rural health


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 HEALTH PROMOT INTHome page
P. M. Johansson, L. S. Eriksson, S. Sadigh, C. Rehnberg, and P. E. Tillgren
Participation, resource mobilization and financial incentives in community-based health promotion: an economic evaluation perspective from Sweden
Health Promot. Int., June 1, 2009; 24(2): 177 - 184.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.