The Finnmark Intervention Study: do community-based intervention programmes threaten self-rated health and well-being? Experiences from Båtsfjord, a fishing village in North Norway
Beate Søholt Lupton1, Vinjar Fønnebø2, Anne Johanne Søgaard3 and Knut Fylkesnes4
1 Institute of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Norway
2 Institute of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Norway
3 Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
4 Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, Norway
Correspondence: Beate Søholt Lupton, Institute of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway, tel: +47-77644818, fax: +47-77644831, Email: blu{at}fmfi.no
Aim: Examine negative side-effects on self-rated health and well-being of a community-based intervention in a fishing community in the Norwegian Arctic. Method: A cohort study with quasi-experimental design with one intervention community and three control communities from the same area. There was a baseline screening (1987), three years intervention (1988–1991) and a rescreening (1993). Of the invited (aged 20–62 years in 1987), 668 (64%) males and 656 (72%) females met at both screenings. The main outcome variables were self-rated health, mental health variables, and preoccupation with health. Those answering the relevant questions at both screenings were analysed. High-risk and low-risk males were analysed separately. There were too few females in the high-risk group to do separate analyses. Results: The main findings among the low-risk group were: Males in Båtsfjord did not differ from males in the control communities. Among females, there was a reduction in the proportion depressed of 20.4% points in Båtsfjord and 9.6% in the control communities (p adjusted=0.060). There was also a decrease in the proportion lonely of 19.2% points and 5.8% respectively (p adjusted=0.005). In the male high-risk group there was a decrease in the proportion lonely by 14.7% points in Båtsfjord and an increase by 5.9% in the control communities (p adjusted=0.004). Conclusion: We have not found that an intervention programme using local empowerment, mass strategies, and intervention on high-risk cases has serious negative side effects on self-rated health, well-being or preoccupation with health.
Key points
- Study on health promotion in a fishing community in crisis using local empowerment, mass strategies and intervention on high-risk cases
- Evaluation of negative side-effects comparing a cohort in the intervention community to a cohort in control communities in a quasi-experimental design
- No negative changes were seen in self-rated health, mental health variables or preoccupation with health
- After intervention there was a higher reduction of lonely or depressed individuals in the intervention community than among the control communities
- Local empowerment and mass strategies should be used to avoid negative side-effects and give the population strategies for coping
Keywords: community-based intervention, coping, loneliness, preoccupation with health, well-being, rural health, self-rated health