Assessing community readiness for early intervention programmes to promote social and emotional health in children

Abstract

Objective Evidence for early intervention and prevention‐based approaches for improving social and emotional health in young children is robust. However, rates of participation in programmes are low. We explored the dynamics which affect levels of community readiness to address the issues of social and emotional health for pregnant women, young children (0‐4 years) and their mothers. Setting A deprived inner‐city housing estate in the north of England. The estate falls within the catchment area of a project that has been awarded long‐term funding to address social and emotional health during pregnancy and early childhood. Methods We interviewed key respondents using the Community Readiness Model. This approach applies a mixed methodology, incorporating readiness scores and qualitative data. A mean community readiness score was calculated enabling the placement of the community in one of nine possible stages of readiness. Interview transcripts were analysed using a qualitative framework approach to generate contextual information to augment the numerical scores. Results An overall score consistent with vague awareness was achieved, indicating a low level of community readiness for social and emotional health interventions. This score suggests that there will be a low likelihood of participation in programmes that address these issues. Conclusion Gauging community readiness offers a way of predicting how willing and prepared a community is to address an issue. Modifying implementation plans so that they first address community readiness may improve participation rates.

How Many Key Informants Are Enough? Analysing the Validity of the Community Readiness Assessment

“…The authors reported that the number of interviews per community varied between one and 33 (mean = 7.3, SD = 5.9, median = 6, six studies provided no information on the number of interviews per community), with 15% of studies using less than the recommended four interviews per community. This is in line with studies published since 2013 that followed the recommendations of the CR handbook and conducted an average of four to eight interviews per community (e.g., in [15][16][17][18][19]). However, Kesten et al.…”

How many key informants are enough? Analysing the validity of the community readiness assessment

“…The authors reported that the number of interviews per community varied between one and 33 (mean = 7.3, SD = 5.9, median = 6, six studies provided no information on the number of interviews per community), with 15% of studies using less than the recommended four interviews per community. This is in line with studies published since 2013 that followed the recommendations of the CR handbook and conducted an average of four to eight interviews per community (e.g., in [ 15 – 19 ]). However, Kesten et al [ 20 ] used the concept of theoretical saturation (i.e., no new concepts are expected by conducting more interviews) to determine the necessary number of interviews for assessing CR for overweight and obesity prevention in pre-adolescent girls.…”

Village Community Readiness In Estabilishing A Global Village

“…From the previous calculation, the community readiness score was 10.3. Referring to the table above, the level of readiness of the Ngargogondo Village community in the tourism aspect of the Language Village is in the preparation stage (fifth position), which means that the leader plays an active role in designing planning seriously, with the simple support of the village community (Edwards et al, 2000;Plested et al, 2006;McElroy et al, 2011;Paltzer et al, 2013;Tri-Ethnic Center, 2014;Islam et al, 2019). Re-highlighting the leadership dimensions of the Language Village"s tourism aspect, the score was found to be 10.6.…”

“…Based on the interval score of 0.4, the level of community readiness in the global village aspect can be seen in Table 8. Referring to the table above and the community readiness score of 8.9, the level of readiness of the Ngargogondo Village community in the global village aspect is in the preplanning stage (fourth position), which means that the community is aware and acknowledges that there is an issue or problem being faced, must take some preventive efforts or countermeasures, but these efforts have not been focused in detail (Edwards et al, 2000;Plested et al, 2006;McElroy et al, 2011;Paltzer et al, 2013;Tri-Ethnic Center, 2014;Islam et al, 2019). Each dimension"s score in the global village aspect tends to be smaller than the Language Village aspect"s score.…”

“…Phon-ngam (2014), on the other hand, uses the dimensions of the availability of accommodation, tourism activities, the availability of information centers, and resources. Meanwhile, our research uses dimensions in the community readiness model (CRM) adopted from the Tri-Ethnic for Prevention Research,which follows other studies but has a different focus, namely public knowledge about issues, community knowledge about efforts, community efforts, leadership, community climate, and resources(Thurman et al, 2003; Slater et al, 2005;McElroy et al, 2011;Paltzer et al, 2013;Ramadhan, 2015;Waryanto and Insani, 2013;Kurniati et al, 2014; Boquiren, 2018;Islam et al, 2019).2020©JIS-ISSN: 2548-4893. All rights reserved Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Volume 19 | Issue 1| June 2020 | Page 58-91 Analysis of Community Readiness Dimensions a.…”