Addressing Systemic Inequities: An Evaluation of the Resilience Catalysts in Public Health Program.

Wendy Ellis,Kristen Hayes,Esmeralda Salas,Stephanie A Bultema,Tahlia Gousse,Kuan-Lung Daniel Chen
{"title":"Addressing Systemic Inequities: An Evaluation of the Resilience Catalysts in Public Health Program.","authors":"Wendy Ellis,Kristen Hayes,Esmeralda Salas,Stephanie A Bultema,Tahlia Gousse,Kuan-Lung Daniel Chen","doi":"10.1097/phh.0000000000002053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"CONTEXT\r\nResilience Catalysts (RC) in Public Health provides local health departments (LHDs) with a process and technical assistance (TA) to operationalize the Community Health Strategist (CHS) role, foster equity, and support community resilience through policy, practice, and program change across multiple sectors.\r\n\r\nOBJECTIVES\r\nThis evaluation sought to (1) identify essential elements of the RC process and TA that help LHDs address the systemic drivers of adversity and inequity, and (2) expand understanding of RC's preliminary impact and inform implications for theory, practice, and funding in the post-COVID context.\r\n\r\nDESIGN\r\nThe mixed-methods evaluation incorporated online surveys and semi-structured interviews. Key themes and takeaways were identified using framework analysis, constant comparison analysis, and descriptive statistics.\r\n\r\nSETTING\r\nThe evaluation was conducted in 12 cities and counties across the United States, including California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington.\r\n\r\nPARTICIPANTS\r\nSurvey participants consisted of 29 representatives of 11 RC sites. Interview participants included 33 individuals: 19 representatives of 9 RC sites and 14 individuals representing RC TA providers and funders.\r\n\r\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\r\nThe evaluation measured outcomes related to collaborative engagement, addressing inequity, systems change, knowledge change, ability to work within a local political and community context, sustainability, and scalability.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nEvaluation results demonstrate outcomes related to community engagement, expansion of system-level thinking, advancing health and racial equity, clarity and understanding of RC process, building LHD and partners' capacity and skills needed to embody the CHS role.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThe RC process prepared LHDs to operationalize the CHS role by providing the knowledge, skills, and capacities needed to understand root causes of adversity and inequity, address structural racism as a public health issue, and develop collaborative plans for addressing root causes.","PeriodicalId":520109,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health Management & Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health Management & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000002053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

CONTEXT Resilience Catalysts (RC) in Public Health provides local health departments (LHDs) with a process and technical assistance (TA) to operationalize the Community Health Strategist (CHS) role, foster equity, and support community resilience through policy, practice, and program change across multiple sectors. OBJECTIVES This evaluation sought to (1) identify essential elements of the RC process and TA that help LHDs address the systemic drivers of adversity and inequity, and (2) expand understanding of RC's preliminary impact and inform implications for theory, practice, and funding in the post-COVID context. DESIGN The mixed-methods evaluation incorporated online surveys and semi-structured interviews. Key themes and takeaways were identified using framework analysis, constant comparison analysis, and descriptive statistics. SETTING The evaluation was conducted in 12 cities and counties across the United States, including California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington. PARTICIPANTS Survey participants consisted of 29 representatives of 11 RC sites. Interview participants included 33 individuals: 19 representatives of 9 RC sites and 14 individuals representing RC TA providers and funders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The evaluation measured outcomes related to collaborative engagement, addressing inequity, systems change, knowledge change, ability to work within a local political and community context, sustainability, and scalability. RESULTS Evaluation results demonstrate outcomes related to community engagement, expansion of system-level thinking, advancing health and racial equity, clarity and understanding of RC process, building LHD and partners' capacity and skills needed to embody the CHS role. CONCLUSIONS The RC process prepared LHDs to operationalize the CHS role by providing the knowledge, skills, and capacities needed to understand root causes of adversity and inequity, address structural racism as a public health issue, and develop collaborative plans for addressing root causes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解决系统性不平等:公共卫生复原力催化剂计划评估》。
CONTEXTResilience Catalysts (RC) in Public Health (LHDs) 为地方卫生部门(LHDs)提供流程和技术援助(TA),以落实社区卫生战略家(CHS)的角色,促进公平,并通过跨多个部门的政策、实践和计划变革来支持社区复原力。该评估旨在:(1)确定 RC 流程和技术援助的基本要素,以帮助地方保健发展机构解决逆境和不平等的系统性驱动因素;(2)扩大对 RC 初步影响的理解,并为后 COVID 环境下的理论、实践和资金提供信息。采用框架分析法、恒定比较分析法和描述性统计法确定了关键主题和收获。地点评估在美国的 12 个城市和县进行,包括加利福尼亚州、科罗拉多州、佛罗里达州、爱荷华州、肯塔基州、马里兰州、马萨诸塞州、新泽西州、北卡罗来纳州、俄亥俄州、田纳西州和华盛顿州。访谈参与者包括 33 人:主要结果测量评估测量了与合作参与、解决不公平问题、系统变革、知识变革、在当地政治和社区背景下工作的能力、可持续性和可扩展性有关的结果。结果评估结果显示了与社区参与、扩展系统级思维、促进健康和种族公平、明确和理解 RC 流程、建设 LHD 和合作伙伴体现 CHS 角色所需的能力和技能相关的成果。结论RC 流程通过提供理解逆境和不公平的根本原因所需的知识、技能和能力,解决作为公共卫生问题的结构性种族主义,并制定解决根本原因的合作计划,为 LHD 履行 CHS 角色做好了准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methods for Teaching Health Equity and Diversity, Equity Inclusion, and Accessibility to Public Health Practitioners: A Semisystematic Review of the Literature. Examining the Relationship Between Local Governmental Expenditures on the Social Determinants of Health and County-Level Overdose Deaths, 2017-2020. Impact of a University-Led COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing Program. Epidemiology of Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection, Alameda County, California, 2017-2021. The Maternal and Child Health Workforce: A Snapshot of Current and Future Needs From Public Health WINS 2021.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1