Connecting Boston's Public Housing Developments to Community Health Centers: Who's Ready for Change?

Battaglia, Tracy A.; Murrell, Samantha S.; Bhosrekar, Sarah Gees; Caron, Sarah E.; Bowen, Deborah J.; Smith, Eugenia; Kalish, Richard; Rorie, Jo-Anna

doi:10.1353/cpr.2012.0035

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was less common to find applications of non-geographic communities brought together by a shared interest. Where shared interests were utilised, they included sexual orientation [ 28 ], cycling [ 29 ], or use of a community health centre [ 30 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Community Readiness Tool Applications: Implications for Reporting

Kostadinov

Daniel

Stanley

et al. 2015

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A systematic review characterised and synthesised applications of the Community Readiness Tool (CRT) and synthesised quantitative results for readiness applications at multiple time points. Methods: Eleven databases in OvidSP and EBSCHOhost were searched to retrieve CRT applications. Information from primary studies was extracted independently by two researchers. Results: Forty applications of the CRT met inclusion criteria focussing on 14 different health and social issues. The community of interest was most often defined solely on the basis of its geographical location (52.5%). Most studies used the CRT to plan (85%) and/or evaluate programs (40%). The CRT protocol was modified in 40% of studies. Six applications evaluated readiness at multiple time points, however limited reporting in primary studies precluded any synthesis of results. Applications identified methodological rigour, contextual information and community engagement as strengths, and time and resource costs as limitations. Conclusions: The CRT is well suited for planning and evaluating complex community health interventions given its flexibility to accommodate diverse definitions of community and issues. CRT applications would benefit from improved reporting; reporting recommendations for use of the CRT are outlined.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Community Readiness Tool Applications: Implications for Reporting

Kostadinov

Daniel

Stanley

et al. 2015

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even with receipt of housing, public housing residents may face challenges to meet their needs (e.g., safety, food, recreation) because they still have low incomes, which negatively influences health and healthcare use (Battaglia et al 2012) and housing stability. Therefore, the other social determinants of health-income, early child development, education, (un)employment, food security, and social exclusion-must be addressed by making investments in these areas as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public housing and healthcare use: an investigation using linked administrative data

Hinds

Bechtel

Distasio

et al. 2018

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study investigated whether a move to public housing affects people's use of healthcare services. Method Using administrative data from Manitoba, the number of hospitalizations, general practitioner (GP), specialist and emergency department (ED) visits, and prescription drugs dispensed in the years before and after the housing move-in date (2012/2013) were measured for a public housing and matched cohort. Generalized linear models with generalized estimating equations tested for differences between the cohorts in utilization trends. The data were modeled using Poisson (rate ratio, RR), negative binomial (incident rate ratio, IRR), and binomial (odds ratio, OR) distributions. Results GP visits (IRR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.06) and prescriptions (IRR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.05) increased, while ED visits (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-1.00) and hospitalizations (OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.96) decreased over time. The public housing cohort had a significantly higher rate of GP visits (IRR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.13), ED visits (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.01-1.37), and prescriptions (IRR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.13), and was more likely to be hospitalized (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.21-1.61) compared to the matched cohort. The rate of inpatient days significantly decreased for the public housing cohort, but did not change for the matched cohort. Conclusion Healthcare use changed similarly over time (except inpatient days) for the two cohorts. Public housing provides a basic need to a population who has a high burden of disease and who may not be able to obtain and maintain housing in the private market.

show abstract

“…A priori power calculation for a paired t -test estimated that 25 respondents were required to detect a mean difference of 0.50 in community readiness scores, with power of 0.80 and alpha of 0.05. Based on previous studies, the standard deviation was estimated at 0.85 [ 28 ]. Contact summary forms were analysed through qualitative content analysis by the first and last authors.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing community readiness online: a concurrent validation study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCommunity readiness for facilitation and uptake of interventions can impact the success of community-based prevention efforts. As currently practiced, measuring community readiness can be a resource intensive process, compromising its use in evaluating multisite community-based prevention efforts. The purpose of this study was to develop, test and validate a more efficient online version of an existing community readiness tool and identify potential problems in completing assessments. This study was conducted in the context of a complex community-based childhood obesity prevention program in South Australia.MethodsFollowing pre-testing, an online version of the community readiness tool was created, wherein respondents, with detailed knowledge of their community and prevention efforts, rated their communities on five anchored rating scales (Knowledge of Efforts, Leadership, Knowledge of the Issue, Community Climate, and Resources). Respondents completed the standard, over-the-phone community readiness interview (“gold standard”) and the new online survey. Paired t-test, St. Laurent’s correlation coefficient and intra-class correlation (ICC) were used to determine the validity of the online tool. Contact summary forms were completed after each interview to capture interview quality.ResultsTwenty-five respondents completed both assessments. There was a statistically significant difference in the overall community readiness scores between the two methods (paired t-test p = 0.03); online scores were consistently higher than interview scores. St. Laurent’s correlation of 0.58 (95 % CI 0.42–0.73) was moderate; the ICC of 0.65 (95 % CI 0.35–0.83) was good. Only for the leadership and resources dimensions was there no statistically significant difference between the scores from the two methods (p = 0.61, p = 0.08 respectively). St Laurent’s correlation (r = 0.83, 95 % CI 0.71–0.92) and the ICC (0.78, 95 % CI 0.57–0.90) were excellent for leadership. Qualitative results from the standard interview method suggest that some respondents felt reluctant to answer questions on behalf of other community members. This may have impacted their self-selected ratings and/or responses to questions during the interview.ConclusionsConcurrent validity for the online method was supported for the Leadership dimension only. However, the online method holds promise as it reduces time and resource burden, allowing for a quicker return of results to the community to inform program planning, implementation and evaluations to improve community health.

show abstract

Connecting Boston's Public Housing Developments to Community Health Centers: Who's Ready for Change?

Cited by 8 publications

References 26 publications

A Systematic Review of Community Readiness Tool Applications: Implications for Reporting

A Systematic Review of Community Readiness Tool Applications: Implications for Reporting

Public housing and healthcare use: an investigation using linked administrative data

Assessing community readiness online: a concurrent validation study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About