REVIEW ARTICLE
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
A review of faith-based holistic health models: Mapping
similarities and differences
Ruth Dykstra a, Jason Paltzer b
a Student, Grand Canyon University, United Sates of America
b PhD, MPH, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Baylor University, United States of
America
Abstract
This review identified and determined core aspects of holistic health models often used
in faith-based global development to integrate the spiritual determinant of health into
a multiple determinants framework. Understanding the similarities and differences of
such models is essential when planning development opportunities. Seven holistic
health models were identified for review. A similar feature among the models was the
importance of the community’s worldview and health beliefs on discussing the spiritual
aspects of health and behavior change. Community engagement and cultivating
relationships were two common themes motivating the models. A primary difference
among the models was the direction of engagement. Some models intentionally focus
on individual-level relationships and move toward larger community-level impact while
others start at the community-level and move toward individual-level engagement.
Both approaches are helpful depending on the context, community readiness, and
available local leadership. Based on the review, two diagrams or maps were created to
help organizations determine which models or model components may be applicable
to their situation.
Introduction
The relationship between faith-based
organizations and community health and
development has been the topic of much discussion
within the past twenty years with focus on how a
holistic model can lead to a more successful and
sustainable outcome.1,2,3 Holistic health can be
difficult to define and even more difficult to apply in
practice.4 Public health and religion have at times
been at odds with each other resulting in distrust and
limited collaboration for the benefit of the
community.5 Given this history, communities of
faith and public health agencies have successfully
worked together to improve health in faith-based
partnerships.6 This history provides the significance
for reviewing existing approaches not only to work
together but to authentically combine faith with
public health. Faith-based health organizations often
121 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
describe an integrated approach combining the
physical and spiritual determinants of health in
various community health programs. However, this
integration can range from staff with spiritual beliefs
implementing health services, to a brief devotion or
prayer prior to delivering services, to embedding
scripture lessons into the service delivery. Faith-
based holistic health models have been developed to
assist organizations looking to emphasize the
spiritual determinant of health alongside and within
the physical, social, and emotional determinants
when it comes to improving quality of life. Such
models contain several assumptions: 1) faith and
beliefs drive behavior; 2) faith and beliefs determine
the strength of relationships; and 3) faith and beliefs
influence priorities. From these assumptions, holistic
health models start from a place of faith to inform the
other health determinants.
In order to further understand what a holistic
model is, it is necessary to explore the definition of
poverty. A typical explanation of poverty is simply
a lack of resources, but when examined with a
different lens, it is possible to see how authentic
holistic community health and development can lead
to communities that thrive. A biblical view of
poverty can be defined in terms of relationships.7
When sin entered the world, it broke mankind’s
relationship with God, each other, and the
environment, creating a fractured system. Holism
has at its core a focus on the restoration of these
relationships. A holistic health model, therefore,
seeks to complement existing health services by
improving the relationships and addressing the
conflicts hindering the living conditions and
environment. It also promotes health and works
toward removing obstacles to freedom, while
keeping a relationship with God at the center. This
differs from a secular multidimensional approach to
community health and development, which takes
into account various aspects of life such as genetics,
environment, culture, or health beliefs but not
necessarily on a foundation of faith and spirituality.8
It is important to understand this difference
between a faith-based holistic model and a more
secular multidimensional approach to development.
Within the world of multiple determinants of health,
models exist that include components impacting a
person’s health like the physical environment,
genetics, and the social environment, but spirituality
is minimally addressed or absent from discussions of
“holistic” interventions. The Health Field
framework,9 the Social-Ecological Model,10 and the
One Health model11 are three examples of multiple
determinant models that imply spirituality as a
determinant but do not consider it as an integral
aspect of health. For the purpose of this review, a
holistic health model was defined as one that
integrated faith and a belief system in other
dimensions of health. This integration is important
and is what sets holistic health and development
models apart from secular models.
Within the current literature, there exists some
gaps in knowledge regarding how holistic health
models are implemented, where they are
implemented, and whether models of holistic
community development vary or are similar.1 A
common criticism of faith-specific holistic health
models is that they are not always sensitive to or
inclusive of traditional or local beliefs and how these
beliefs interact with the overall health of the
community. It can be easy for organizations to go
into a community with a heavy focus on their
definition of what faith is or should be and not
address the existing belief structures. Given this real
possibility, it is important to explore various health
models and determine strengths and limitations of
each model to minimize division given the existing
faith and belief system of each community.
A successful holistic model will be able to
address the community’s existing spiritual beliefs
and either use them as motivators for health or
introduce the community to a new way of thinking
to promote health and development through
reframing, reprioritizing, and reforming beliefs.12
122 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
While a holistic methodology can be undertaken by
a faith-based organization from any religion,13,14 the
majority of the literature reviewed for this paper
involved Christian faith-based organizations
integrating a Christian worldview and beliefs.
Although much literature exists describing examples
of faith-based community health and development
endeavors, the majority are focused on efforts in
Africa15,16,17 and Southeast Asia.13,14 Individual
models are identified, such as Community Health
Evangelism18 and Umoja,19 but little to no
comparison of the models exists. This lack of side-
by-side evaluation leads to a need to examine the
various components and driving factors behind the
models. Such components include how the model
engages the community, how it incorporates and
measures spirituality (both the community’s existing
spirituality and that of the faith-based organization)
and health, and its view of holism as a primary
approach to the development mission or as a
secondary priority.
Evaluating the strategies behind holistic health
models is an important factor that should be
undertaken before implementation of any project.
Currently, no decision matrix is available to help
choose what holistic model may be appropriate for
the community. This paper will focus on providing
a comparison of the components of various holistic
models of community health and development and
identify tools used to evaluate the community
throughout the development process. The goal is to
provide a starting point for developing a resource
with which to determine how to select a holistic
model that fits the community of interest or pull
together components of multiple models. This will
also help in measuring effectiveness of the models
by identifying unique components important for the
change process.
Methods
A review of the existing literature on
transformational or holistic community health and
development was conducted from September 2018
to January 2019 to identify existing frameworks or
models being used within the community
development field. The following databases were
used: SciELO, Directory of Open Access Journals,
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, Social
Sciences Citation Index, Academic Search
Complete, ScienceDirect, CINAHL Complete, and
JSTOR Journals. Key words and search terms used
to identify articles focused on combinations of
community or transformational development, faith-
based development, wholistic framework for
development, integral mission, holistic mission, and
model of community development. Search results
yielded almost 2,000 articles. From these results,
special attention was given to those articles with a
more holistic community development focus which
could include addressing issues like clean water and
agriculture which impact health rather than on those
that dealt with individual diseases. Approximately
250 abstracts were read, and of these, 120 were
chosen for in depth review. Evaluation of whether
the model presented was truly holistic or simply
multidimensional further refined the study. Articles
discussing other helpful processes and methods and
one-off programs that demonstrated integration and
discipleship like the Salvation Army diffusion
model15 and Missao Integral20 were excluded from
discussion in this paper due to their lack of an
organized developmental focus. Resources
pertaining to these methods are included in the
annotated bibliography available upon request. The
review focused mainly on international development
as this was a trend in the majority of the literature;
however, some models were discussed within the
context of the United States. Users of the models
were contacted by email to provide input into the
categorization of their models. Input from those that
responded were taken into consideration during the
categorization process.
123 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
Results
The existing literature and resources that were
reviewed contained many different models of
holistic development. Figure 1 provides a list of the
selected models reviewed and key components
identified from the literature. Some models did not
have extensive support in the literature and may have
components or characteristics not described in this
review. During the review, it was helpful to group
the frameworks, tools, and networks according to
their similarities and differences alongside their
specific strengths.
Tools like the Wholistic Worldview Analysis
with the Ten Seed Technique21 as well as CCM-
Umoja with the Light Wheel22 allow for the
community to categorize and measure their
concerns, evaluate the agents that are causing the
concerns, and then, as a whole, determine their
priorities. These tools can serve to measure the
community’s starting point and create a baseline
against which to evaluate future community growth
throughout the development process. Other models
like the Holistic Health and Community
Transformation Model and Community Health
Evangelism (CHE) utilize health flip books as a
method of explaining health ideas in an easy to grasp
way.15,23 Community guidebooks and modules for
the community to work through on specific topics
also exist and are used by multiple models including
Truth Centered Transformation. For example, a
module may focus on women and children’s issues,
economic development, or agricultural skills.
Assessment tools that can be used before, during,
and after the community transformation also exist for
the majority of the models reviewed.
Figure 1. Comparison table of predominant holistic models
Name Organization
or Group
Primary
Initiator of
Change
(can be adjusted
to meet the
situation)
Spheres of
Strength
Benefits Assessment
Tools
Available
Training
Tools
Exist
Community
Health
Evangelism
(CHE)
Global CHE
Network
Individual Environmental
Social
Clinical
Easily adaptable
Has multiple learning
tools and modules for
specific populations
Yes
Church-
Community
Mobilization
(Umoja)
Tearfund Community Environmental
Social
Clinical
Multiple tools and
instructions on how
to facilitate
discussions; includes
five stages of
empowering the
church.
Yes
Yes
Transformational
Development
Frame
World Vision Individual Social
Economic
Focuses on children
and families, making
them agents of
change.
Yes
Wholistic
Worldview
Analysis
Model/Tool
developed by
Ravi
Jayakaran
Community Environmental
Social
Clinical
Economic
Aides the community
in identifying who
they are and what
their vision is
Yes
124 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
Holistic Health
and Community
Transformation
Model
Salvation
Army
Community Social
Environmental
Clinical
Economic
Political
Strengthens
community cohesion
and addresses
community needs
Yes
Transformational
Development
Opportunity
International
Individual Economic but
strives to
address social,
political,
spiritual, and
behavioral
aspects
Using micro-finance
programs to raise
quality of life and
teach empowerment,
character, and service
Yes Yes
Truth Centered
Transformation
Reconciled
World
Community Economic
Social
Clinical
Spiritual
Environmental
Strengthens the
community and
places focus on God
empowering/helping
them and not relying
on organizations
Yes
Although spiritual measures were identified as
being important to measure, these specific
measurements were not clearly defined and is an area
for continued improvement. After implementation,
the impact of holistic development was measured in
three core areas: physical health, spiritual life, and
community cohesion (Figure 2). A community
going through holistic development will also have
spiritual change. Holistic models emphasize the soul
and foster a relationship with God as foundational
for understanding purpose and identity. Spiritual life
can be measured through local church activity or the
influence of faith in daily decision-making and
behavior. For a truly holistic model, restoring a
relationship with God is central7,20 ,24 as it determines
the motivation for serving the larger community
beyond the individual, a necessary component of
development. Improved community health can also
be measured by direct interventions like vaccines,
improved water/sanitation, and adequate nutrition.
Decreases in disease incidence, morbidity, and
premature mortality are indicators of improved
physical health.25 Community cohesion and the
extent to which the holistic approach brought the
community closer together is a third type of
measurement used by models to measure growth.
Sharing of resources and skills, social trust, and a
greater sense of service can be measures of
community cohesion.25 Reviewing the models
together emphasizes the importance of measuring
impact across these three areas throughout the
development process and be used to determine how
closely the community is staying accountable to its
set priorities.
125 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
Figure 2. Measurement indicators
Similarities
The holistic models discovered during the
review are similar in a few key ways. First,
community “ownership” is an essential part of all
successful development and is no exception when it
comes to holistic health models.23,26 Ownership
typically starts with the community defining what
strengths, assets, issues, or needs exist and deciding
on possible solutions. Holistic models may differ in
the approach, processes, or tools used to get to the
decision because they start with the community’s
worldview. This leads to a focus on motivation and
purpose for addressing change. Basing ownership
on this deeper sense of purpose rather than general
input or advice takes more time but is also more
sustainable as it switches the typical decision-
making paradigm. The facilitating organization
provides input but the community members have
ultimate decision-making ability regarding
development and use of their existing skills and
resources used alongside any requested training or
resources. Maintaining the dignity of the community
members is central in a self-sustainable community.
Holistic health models differ regarding community
ownership by emphasizing a deeper sense of purpose
through faith in God and this manifests itself in
communal unity through service and volunteerism.
As change happens in the individual, there is a desire
to help others find the same freedom. This is
achieved in part through service. A model’s sphere
of strength can be used to help identify an
appropriate model depending on the community’s
worldview, assets, and needs.
A second similarity between the models is the
practice of multiplicative capacity building or a
training-the-trainer approach to learning. In many
communities, this is used to strengthen community
cohesion by building trust.18,23,26 Often times, an
organization is embraced if a trusting relationship
between members of the community and the
development organization exists. An example of this
concept is seen in the work of Dr. Regi George and
Dr. Lalitha Regi who created the Tribal Health
Initiative in the remote villages of India. As doctors,
they were able to train community members to be
community health workers who could then provide
maternal and child care.14 Building trust took a
while, but eventually the whole community came to
embrace the new health workers. Community and
health development training can take many forms,
from medical training conferences27 to agricultural
skills.16
Differences
A key difference among the models is in the
flow or direction in transforming a community.
Some start with individual change and then spread to
126 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
community as seen in CHE and World Vision
models23,28 while others start with the community
and then trickle down to individuals as seen in
Tearfund’s CCM-Umoja model.19,29 Each approach
has its strengths based on the existing community
politics, attitudes toward religion, and issues facing
the community. Whether a model starts with
individual change or community level change can
depend on the context of each site in which they are
working. Some of the models are adaptable and can
operate at both levels simultaneously. For the
purpose of this paper, we assessed them on the
approach most often represented in the literature.
Some models, like Opportunity International’s
transformational development, touch on specific
determinants of health such as agriculture or
economic development;25 others are more diverse
and have manuals or resources that address a wide
range of determinants including women’s health,
sanitation, and education. Another difference is how
faith and worldview are integrated into the
development process. Some models specifically
integrate scripture lessons into the training or lessons
such as the CHE model, while others rely on the tool
connected with the skill of the facilitator to integrate
faith into the community discussions such as the
Wholistic Worldview Analysis.
Model Map
The goal of this review was to evaluate the
current models of holistic health and create a model
map that would help communities and organizations
determine which model might be best to use based
on the specific needs of the community. During this
research, several large models were identified and a
summary of each is included in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Table of model summaries
Name Organizati
on or
Group
Brief Description
Community
Health
Evangelism
(CHE)
Global
CHE
Network
Community Health Evangelism, or CHE, is a strategy being used by hundreds of Christian
churches and organizations across the globe. CHE integrates evangelism and discipleship
with community health and development. Through CHE, communities learn to identify
issues and mobilize resources to build up their own community. Community Health
Evangelists, or CHEs, make home visits to share Christ and to share with families what
they have learned about areas of local concern, such as health promotion, women’s issues,
agriculture, economic development, working with children, and working with people with
disabilities. It also has multiple tools and handouts to use with the community in various
languages. CHE is adaptable to various situations and communities. It has a well-defined
process and track record.
Church-
Community
Mobilization
(Umoja)
Tearfund The organization’s mission is to give the church a vision for their community by enthusing
and empowering the church to go into the community and help identify and address needs
with their own resources. Church community transformation also has multiple tools to
help identify needs and evaluate along the way such as the LIGHT wheel. Uses facilitator
guides that stress importance of community empowerment (as well as five stages of
empowering the church) and offer solutions to potential disagreements or discord.
Transformational
Development
Frame
World
Vision
This framework is the preferred model of transformational development for world vision
partnerships. A process and set of actions through which children, families and
communities move toward wholeness of life with dignity, justice, peace, and hope as the
Bible describes the Kingdom of God. The process emphasizes community ownership,
sustainability, holism, and mutual transformation. There is a high focus on children and
improving communities by improving the future of the children.
127 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
Wholistic
Worldview
Analysis
Tool/model
developed
by Ravi
Javakaran
This model aides the community in identifying who they are and what their vision is for
the future. It identifies 3 spheres of control wherein items of life fall: 1) outside control of
the community or outsiders, 2) controlled by outsiders, and 3) controlled by community.
The model uses tools like the 10 seed technique to identify items of importance for the
community and focus of interventions, and can be used throughout development to
identify new or changing priorities as well as provide baseline for community.
Holistic Health
and Community
Transformation
Model
Salvation
Army
This model uses church members help develop skills for communities. It is not just health
focused but also development focused and is useful in difficult to access areas and very
poor areas. It can be used in conjunction with the Community Reach model.
Transformational
Development
Opportunity
Internationa
l
This model uses microfinance as a way to improve employment and income opportunities.
It seeks to holistically transform lives not just financially and has a set of indicators in 4
areas of life: abundance, empowerment, character, and service. As financial means
improve, freedom should come in many various forms.
Truth Centered
Transformation
Reconciled
World
This organization works with churches in poor, rural communities to help empower, grow,
and strengthen the community. It has 10 modules that the community works through. A
module is taught and then the community begins to put the lessons learned into practice.
Once they are successfully practicing the first module they move onto the next. Seeks to
dispel lies and fatalistic beliefs and replace them with hope and a value through God.
Success is seen not only in bettering of economic status, but also in spiritual growth and
service.
Discussion
Each community comes with its own
challenges and pre-existing foundational resources.
Among the literature identifying holistic community
health models, there are a few overarching themes
that need to be addressed when looking to adapt the
model to future communities. Two themes guide the
start of the process: individual versus the community
and the availability of churches or spiritual leaders in
the community. The various models generally fall
into two categories: those that start with change in
the individual and then builds up to the community
and those that start with the larger community and
works down to the individual. Moving in both
directions is possible and the categorization in this
review does not imply only one direction but the one
commonly identified in the literature or mentioned
by users that responded via email. The presence or
absence of a local church will influence the type of
facilitation required in order to guide and integrate
the values and faith of the holistic model into the
community discussions and decision-making
process.
Figure 4 shows how these two themes create
four quadrants where models can be placed based on
their characteristics found in the literature. These
themes can be seen within a few of the larger holistic
models like CHE, CCM-Umoja, and the Wholistic
Worldview Analysis. As an organization approaches
a community project, it can place itself on this matrix
based on whether or not they will be primarily
engaging a community that has a church in place
(partnering with the church) or if there is no existing
church and the organization will be taking on more
of a church planting role. Also, depending on the
situation, they can consider focusing on
implementing individual change first and then
spreading to the community or starting at the
community level and working down to individual
impact. This focus on either individual or
community can be seen in several prominent public
health theories. For example, the Health Belief
Model, Diffusion of Innovation, and Trans-
128 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
theoretical Model place emphasis on individual
beliefs. The Theory of Planned Behavior, Social
Cognitive Theory, and Social Norms Theory seem to
place an emphasis on the environment and
community influences.30 Each direction of focus
uses different tactics and approaches in interventions
depending on the site and situation where one
direction may be more appropriate to start with than
the other.
Figure 4. Map of holistic health models based on the level of initiation and the presence of a local church.
While reviewing the current literature, two
dominant trends appear about who the initial focus
of change is. The first is the individual as the focus
of change and the second is the community as the
initial focus of change. Models that follow the
individual first approach focus on developing the
individual’s skills, opportunities, and environment
as well as their faith. As the individual grows, they
then reach out to others in the community and share
what they have learned, hopefully serving as an
example that motivates others in the community to
change as well. The second trend works the other
way. Change starts on a larger scale initiating
community-level development projects through
social consensus such as a well health education
campaign or a school-based nutrition program, and
then using facilitators to follow-up with families on
an individual level. Although most of the
frameworks tended to fall into one or the other
category, a few moved back and forth between the
two depending on the context. An example of this
would be World Vision.28 Known for their child
sponsorships, they manage to help improve an
individual’s life in many ways and, through them,
the life of their family and then, ultimately, the
community. They also work the opposite way,
129 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
starting at the communal level with health care,
access to churches, and schooling, which in turn
touches the individual. Both approaches can be
effective depending on the community context,
available resources, and the community’s readiness
to change.
Another theme identified during the review of
the literature is the use of existing churches or
community spiritual leaders in the development
process. Spirituality and worldview play a large part
in how people behave and why they do what they do.
Understanding this motivation is important in
implementing change, therefore identifying current
beliefs is essential. Utilizing existing churches or
leaders can be beneficial because they already have
a relationship with the people and have their trust.
Church buildings and resources can also be used for
house training sessions or informational meetings
while creating a natural environment to discuss
issues related to faith, worldview, and God. The
church is often seen as a source of help and this belief
can be utilized and reinforced during the
transformational development process.31 True
holistic development integrates the beliefs of the
churches with the change and is not merely faith-
placed as many secular multidimensional health
models.
There may not always be an existing church in
the community, and it is within these environments
that many holistic health models work to plant
churches. One of the benefits of this, especially for
those that move from an individual to community
focus, is that the community’s faith can be
strengthened as individuals now have a safe place to
go for spiritual growth. A church can also serve as a
place of education for health and skills training.
Faith-based organizations use holistic health models
to come alongside the community and serve as a
facilitator for change. The facilitator helps to guide
the community in recognizing where growth can
occur through the model. The CHE model identifies
members of the community as Community Health
Evangelists and trains them about disease prevention
and healthy living and the biblical motivation for
changing behavior. This integration of the spiritual
and the physical can be traced throughout the whole
development process. The CHE is tasked with
meeting 10–15 households within the community
and sharing what they learned with their neighbors.23
By working in small groups like this, not only do the
trainers develop trust but, many times, small
churches grow out of this. CCM-Umoja follows a
similar process, but the facilitator works with small
community groups to train community members and
develop a plan for change. Other models like
Opportunity International’s transformational
development utilize one-on-one relationships
between the facilitator and the community
member.25
Facilitation not only means training the
community, but it also means encouraging
discussion, managing conflict, and allowing
community members to feel like their voices are
being heard and are important. This facilitation often
involves helping communities define their
worldview and assess their current situation to
measure change. For example, the Light Wheel tool
used in CCM-Umoja or the Ten Seed Technique
used by various groups help the community identify
who they are and measure where they want to go
based on recognition of their worldview. In order to
reach the community on certain issues, worldviews
may need to be reframed, reprioritized, or reformed.
The 3R model explains what this may look like as
beliefs can be reframed to provide alternatives
without negating the belief, reprioritized to introduce
a new belief that corresponds with the behavior
wanted, or reformed (directly confronting a belief
about its flaws).12 This revision of world view is also
seen in the Truth Centered Transformation model.24
Beliefs like “we were born poor, we will always be
poor” and other fatalistic views are addressed head
on and communities are presented with God’s vision
130 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
of the community and the value that God places on
people.
Limitations and Strengths
Although there is much value from the existing
literature, some limitations must be acknowledged.
Attempts were made to gather as many resources as
possible from non-Christian faith-based
organizations as possible; however, there is still
significantly less non-Christian representation
among the articles reviewed. Future consideration
could be given to how non-Christian models differ in
scope and practice. Multiple databases were used for
this review, and some models may have been
misinterpreted, missed, or reported in languages
other than English, which were not included in the
search.
There was also a lack of interviews with
multiple key leadership within the faith-based
organizations regarding the use of the models. This
seems to be the case with much of the existing
literature as well. Although informal discussions
were conducted with a couple of leaders, future
research may benefit from in-depth discussion with
developers of holistic health models. Providing
research support to faith-based organizations using
these models will increase the available evidence of
holistic health models and allow for a more accurate
and thorough review of the models.
In reviewing the literature, it was also noticed
that not much was written about advocacy or policy
in holistic development. More emphasis was placed
on personal relationships and work among the
community than on taking on larger changes at a
local or national level. This gap presents an
opportunity for future developers and researchers to
evaluate how faith-based organizations can act as
advocates for the population that they serve and
encourage participation from the community to fight
for change.
This review identified and gathered many of
the models that exist into a concise compilation,
which can be found in the annotated bibliography
available upon request. The annotated bibliography
also contains information about networks and
resources available to faith-based organizations.
Conclusion
Within the scope of holistic community health
and development, many models exist. By reviewing
and discussing the similarities, differences, and
important themes among them, a model map was
created, pointing to several important decision points
in selecting a model or components that would best
fit the community. Several of the larger models were
identified and examples given. The goal of creating
communities that know who they are (and whose
they are), where they are going, and their purpose, is
essential to the success of holistic community
development.
References
1. Oliver J. Guest editor conclusion: research agenda-
setting for faith and health in development- where to
now? Development in Practice. 2017;27(5):775-81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2017.1332164
2. Yoms E, Du Toit NB. A comparative discourse on
Christian and secular distinctive: features of
transformational development. Missionalia.
2017;45(1):45-60.
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_artte
xt&pid=S0256-
95072017000100004&lng=en&tlng=en
3. Heist D, Cnaan R. Faith-based international
development work: a review. Religions. 2016;7(19).
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel7030019
4. Jasemi M, Valizadeh L, Zamanzadeh V, Keogh B. A
concept analysis of holistic care by hybrid model.
Indian J Palliat Care. 2017;23(1):71-80.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1705.197960
5. Morabia A. Faith-based organizations and public
health: another facet of the public health dialogue.
Am J Public Health. 2019;109(3):341.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304935
6. Idler E, Levin J, VanderWeele T, Khan A.
Partnerships between public health agencies and
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
131 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
faith communities. Am J Public Health.
2019;109(3):346-47.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304941
7. Myers B. The church and transformational
development. Transformation. 2000;17(2):64-7.
8. Ziebarth D. Wholistic health care: Evolutionary
conceptual analysis. J Relig Health. 2016; 55:1800-
23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0199-6
9. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Using
Performance Monitoring to Improve Community
Health. Durch JS, Bailey LA, Stoto MA, editors.
Understanding health and its determinants. In:
Improving health in the community: a role for
performance monitoring. Washington (DC):
National Academies Press (US);1997. Available
from:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233
009/
10. Golden S, Earp J. Social ecological approaches to
individuals and their contexts: twenty years of health
education & behavior health promotion
interventions. Health Education & Behavior.
2012;39(3):364-72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198111418634
11. Leung Z, Middleton D, Morrison K. One Health and
EcoHealth in Ontario: a qualitative study exploring
how holistic and integrative approaches are shaping
public health practice in Ontario. BioMed Central
Public Health. 2012;12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-358
12. Padela A, Malik S, Vu M, Quinn M, Peek M.
Developing religiously-tailored health messages for
behavioral change: introducing the reframe,
reprioritize, and reform (“3R”) model. Social Sci
Med. 2018;204:92-9.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pi
i/S0277953618301278?via%3Dihub
13. Candland C. Faith as social capital: religion and
community development in Southern Asia. Policy
Sciences. 2000;33:355-74.
14. Long K, Patterson G, Bhattacharji S. Whole-person
health and development: two South Indian
initiatives. Devel Practice. 2017;27(5):760-65.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2017.1329401
15. Magezi V. Church-driven primary health care:
models for an integrated church and community
primary health care in Africa (a case study of the
Salvation Army in East Africa. HTS Teologiese
Studies/ Theological Studies. 2018;74(2).
https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i2.4365
16. Cochrane L. Land degradation, faith-based
organizations, and sustainability in Senegal. Culture,
Ag Food Envir. 2013;35(2):112-24.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12015
17. Oliver J, Smith S. Innovative faith-community
responses to HIV and AIDS: summative lessons
from over two decades of work. Review Faith Int
Affairs. 2016;14(3):5-21.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2016.1215839
18. Nickel M. A tool for church planting community
health education/evangelism (CHE). Missio Aposta.
2010;18(1).
19. Njoroge F, Raistrick T, Crooks B, Mouradian J.
Umoja coordinators guide. Teddington: Tearfund;
2009.
20. Smither E. Missao Integral [holistic mission or the
‘whole Gospel’] applied: Brazilian evangelical
models of holistic mission in the Arab-Muslim
world. Verbum et Ecclesia. 2011;32(1).
https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ve.v32i1.483
21. Jayakaran R. Wholistic worldview analysis:
understanding community realities. Participatory
Learning and Action. 2007; 56.
22. Tearfund. An introductory guide to The LIGHT
WHEEL toolkit: a tool for measuring holistic
change. 2016. Available from
https://learn.tearfund.org/~/media/files/tilz/impact_a
nd_evaluation/2016-tearfund-light-wheel-intro-
en.pdf?la=en
23. Global CHE Network. CHE overview. 2007.
Available from www.CHEnetwork.org
24. Truth Centered Transformation. Truth Centered
Transformation Practitioner’s Guide. N.D. Available
from https://tctprogram.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/Practitioners-Guide-
FINAL-March-2018_PDF-Version.pdf
25. Getu M. Measuring transformation: conceptual
framework and indicators. Transformation.
2002;19(2).
26. Whisenant D, Cortes C, Ewell P, Cuellar N. The use
of community based participatory research to assess
perceived health status and health education needs
of persons in rural and urban Haiti. Online J Rural
Nurs Health Care. 17(1).
about:blank
about:blank
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233009/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233009/
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
132 Dykstra & Paltzer
June 2020. Christian Journal for Global Health 7(2)
http://dx.doi.org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.14574/ojrnhc
.v17i1.427
27. Kvasnicka J, Olson K, Saga M, Danda I, Hurley R,
Moody G, et al. Teaching quality improvement in
Tanzania: a model of inter-professional partnership
for global health development. Christ J Global
Health. 2017;4(1):34-5.
28. Byworth J. World Vision’s approach to
transformational development: frame, policy and
indicators. Transformation. 2003;20(2).
29. Gaw H. Church and community mobilization in
Africa. 2017. Available from
https://learn.tearfund.org/~/media/files/tilz/churches/
ccm/2017-tearfund-ccm-in-africa-en.pdf?la=en
30. Baylor University. Behavioral change models. N.D.
Available from
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-
Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/Behavioral
ChangeTheories_print.html
31. Bryan G, Choi J, Karlan D. Randomizing religion:
the impact of protestant evangelism on economic
outcomes. NBER Working Paper Series. 2018.
Available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w24278
Peer Reviewed: Submitted 19 June 2019, accepted 18 Dec 2019, published June 2020
Competing Interests: None declared.
Correspondence: Ruth Dykstra, Grand Canyon University, United States of America.
ruth.dykstra@gmail.com
Cite this article as: Dykstra A, Paltzer J. A review of faith-based holistic health models: Mapping
similarities and differences. Christian Journal for Global Health. June 2020; 7(2):120-132.
https://doi.org/10.15566/cjgh.v7i2.311
© Authors. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are properly cited. To view a copy of the license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
www.cjgh.org
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
mailto:ruth.dykstra@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.15566/cjgh.v7i2.311
about:blank