A community systems approach to substance abuse prevention in a rural setting

Abstract

The Community Health Demonstration Project developed a community systems model of program development and interventions which provides consistent, ongoing prevention messages and services across multiple delivery systems and service providers. This model has brought together various sectors of a rural disadvantaged Appalachian community in Pennsylvania to plan, implement, and evaluate a community-wide campaign addressing the prevention of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) problems. The model for this community prevention effort focused primarily on the development of community awareness, resources, and programming-capacity building-all of which provides a foundation for continuing attitude and behavior change. Preliminary evaluative data indicate that awareness of local ATOD problems has increased. Moreover, new programming has been implemented and interaction and cooperation among services providers have improved dramatically during the course of the project.

Social, health and drug use characteristics of primary crack users in three mid-sized communities in British Columbia, Canada

“…In many non-urban/rural communities, basic services and interventions of relevance for the study population, for example, detoxification or treatment for substance use, specialized infectious disease testing and/or treatment, targeted prevention programmes for high-risk substance use, specialized mental health and/or co-morbidity care, are only sparsely or not at all available and individuals in these settings face substantial barriers to access for appropriate services (Borders & Booth, 2007;Newbold, 1998;Steel & Haverkos, 1992). While there is a basic need to establish and make available such interventions, they will typically need to rely on distinct delivery models, for example, community health care frameworks, etc (Borders & Booth, 2007;Robertson et al, 1997;Steel & Haverkos, 1992;Vicary, Doebler, Bridger, Gurgevich, & Deike, 1996). For the specific care of our study population -that is, primary crack users in non-urban communities in BC -extensive service improvement and expansion needs virtually exist on all ends.…”

Readiness, Functioning, and Perceived Effectiveness in Community Prevention Coalitions: A Study of Communities That Care

“…Because the community is the unit of analysis, assembling large sample sizes has traditionally been difficult. Most studies in this area have been qualitative case studies of one or at most a handful of coalitions (Farquhar, 1978;Francisco, Paine, & Fawcett, 1993;Goodman, Wheeler, & Lee, 1995;Jacobs et al, 1986;Mittelmark et al, 1986;Rindskopf, & Saxe, 1998;Vicary Doebler, Bridger, Gurgevich, & Deike, 1996). Recently studies have been conducted with a sample size of 10 or more (Butterfoss, Goodman, & Wandersman, 1996;COMMIT, 1995;Kegler Steekler, Malek, & McLeroy, 1998;Kumpfer et al, 1993;Saxe et al, 1997;Yin, Kaftarian, Yu, & Jansen, 1997).…”

Organizational networks of collaboration for community‐based living

“…These networks can increase local opportunities to communicate new information, mobilize and share scarce resources, reduce gaps or overlaps in service delivery, and empower vulnerable population groups in the process (Hays, Hays, DeVille, and Mulhall, 2000;Vicary and others, 1996). Hence, the lead nonprofit actor in statefunded transition projects must be able to bridge social gaps and mobilize cooperation among diverse stakeholders in the community.…”