PCD logo

Community Case Study


checkboxThe article is of interest to PCD readers.

checkboxThe article fits the mission of the journal to address the interface between applied prevention research and public health practice in chronic disease prevention.

checkboxThe article spotlights community engagement efforts in the context of a community-based, disease-related intervention or program. A community can be defined by geography (eg, region, municipality), institution (eg, worksite, church), similar characteristics (eg, sex, race, age), or other factors.

checkboxThe title accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.

checkboxThe manuscript adds substantially to what is already known about the topic.

checkboxThe manuscript is clearly and concisely written and is free of jargon.

checkboxEach section of the manuscript — Background, Community Context, Methods, Outcome, Interpretation — includes the appropriate elements. The sections are clearly delineated.

checkboxThe citations are up to date and relevant. All statements requiring citations have citations.

checkboxThe Acknowledgments identify funding for the study.

checkboxThe article has no more than 3,000 words and 20 references.

checkboxIf the article includes photographs, illustrations, newspaper clippings, short video or audio recordings (up to 5 minutes), multimedia, or other information, they are relevant and can be delivered or linked to via the Web.


checkboxA structured abstract has the following subheadings: Background, Community Context, Methods, Outcome, and Interpretation.

checkboxThe abstract accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.

checkboxThe abstract has no more than 250 words.


checkboxThe disease and related problem (eg, low screening rates, lack of physical activity) addressed by the intervention or program is introduced.

checkboxScientific knowledge on the disease or problem, including a few references, is described.

checkboxThe importance of the problem is explained.

checkboxDefinitions of terms specific to the context of the manuscript are provided.

checkboxThe authors appear to know their subject.

checkboxThe section is no more than 300 words.

Community Context

checkboxThe community in which the intervention or program takes place is introduced and described in detail.

checkboxThe community described must meet the definition of community. (See Point 3 in General above.)

checkboxThe sociodemographic characteristics of the community are provided.

checkboxOther aspects of the community relevant to the problem (eg, racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity; economic base; recreational facilities; common diet; support systems) are described.

checkboxThe authors describe the health problem as it exists in the community.

checkboxThe authors explain why the problem exists in the community.

checkboxThe authors state 2 objectives. They first state briefly and concisely the objective of the disease-related intervention or program. The authors then state the objective of the community engagement efforts.

checkboxOutcomes of interest for the community engagement efforts are stated. Outcomes must be based on changes in the way the community became engaged in planning or implementing the intervention or program.


checkboxThe intervention or program is described briefly.

checkboxThe plan for engaging the community in the program or intervention is described in detail.

checkboxThe ways in which community members were identified as potential partners in the health initiative are addressed.

checkboxThe process of recruiting partners is explained.

checkboxThe authors describe how adequate representation of diverse racial, ethnic, or cultural perspectives was determined.

checkboxThe involvement of community partners in identifying or modifying the intervention or program is addressed.

checkboxThe authors explain how partners were engaged in data collection or analysis or both.

checkboxThe way in which information was communicated by public health practitioners to partners and the general community is addressed.

checkboxMechanisms for feedback from the community to public health practitioners are described.

checkboxFunding and other resources required to implement the community engagement plan are outlined.

checkboxThe development and distribution of promotional materials are explained.

checkboxA timeline is provided.

checkboxThe authors explain why they selected the particular elements of their approach to the community instead of other possible options.

checkboxA plan for assessing the success of the community engagement efforts is described; the plan is based on the stated objectives and outcomes of interest.

checkboxThe authors state whether the plan for assessing success is based on quantitative or qualitative data.

checkboxIf the manuscript describes research involving human subjects, it includes a statement that the research was approved by an appropriate institutional review board.


checkboxThe effect of the community engagement efforts is assessed.

checkboxThe assessment is focused on the extent to which the efforts met stated objectives and the plan outlined in the Methods section was followed.

checkboxThe authors describe how standard practice of community engagement changed.

checkboxNew partners and new mechanisms for involving partners are identified.

checkboxProcesses and activities that promoted or impeded success are described.

checkboxUnexpected successes (or challenges) are highlighted.

checkboxFeedback is described for both directions: how effective were communication efforts between public health practitioners and members of the community?

checkboxOutcomes of interest (ie, changes in the community) are described either qualitatively or quantitatively.

checkboxData are provided.


checkboxThe objective and outcomes of the community engagement efforts are addressed.

checkboxThe authors discuss whether the activity was worthwhile and how they would do things differently next time.

checkboxAdvice and insight are offered to other communities interested in setting up a similar program.

checkboxThe interpretation sounds logical on the basis of the evidence provided in the previous sections.

checkboxSpeculation and overgeneralization are avoided.

checkboxThe section ends with a clear, concise conclusion that does not go beyond the scope of the study.

Tables and Figures

checkboxThe tables and figures are well constructed, easy to comprehend, and visually appealing.

checkboxInformation in the tables or figures is not duplicated in the text.

checkboxInformation in the tables or figures is consistent with information in the text.

checkboxNumbers add up correctly.

checkboxThe tables and figures are able to stand independently; they do not require explanation from the text.


The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.

Page last reviewed: February 6, 2015