How does community context influence coalitions in the formation stage? a multiple case study based on the Community Coalition Action Theory

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Community coalitions are rooted in complex and dynamic community systems. Despite recognition that environmental factors affect coalition behavior, few studies have examined how community context impacts coalition formation. Using the Community Coalition Action theory as an organizing framework, the current study employs multiple case study methodology to examine how five domains of community context affect coalitions in the formation stage of coalition development. Domains are history of collaboration, geography, community demographics and economic conditions, community politics and history, and community norms and values.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were from 8 sites that participated in an evaluation of a healthy cities and communities initiative in California. Twenty-three focus groups were conducted with coalition members, and 76 semi-structured interviews were conducted with local coordinators and coalition leaders. Cross-site analyses were conducted to identify the ways contextual domains influenced selection of the lead agency, coalition membership, staffing and leadership, and coalition processes and structures.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>History of collaboration influenced all four coalition factors examined, from lead agency selection to coalition structure. Geography influenced coalition formation largely through membership and staffing, whereas the demographic and economic makeup of the community had an impact on coalition membership, staffing, and infrastructure for coalition processes. The influence of community politics, history, norms and values was most noticeable on coalition membership.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Findings contribute to an ecologic and theory-based understanding of the range of ways community context influences coalitions in their formative stage.</p

San Francisco Hep B Free: A Grassroots Community Coalition to Prevent Hepatitis B and Liver Cancer

Chronic hepatitis B is the leading cause of liver cancer and the largest health disparity between Asian/Pacific Islanders (APIs) and the general US population. The Hep B Free model was launched to eliminate hepatitis B infection by increasing hepatitis B awareness, testing, vaccination, and treatment among APIs by building a broad, community-wide coalition. The San Francisco Hep B Free campaign is a diverse public/private collaboration unifying the API community, health care system, policy makers, businesses, and the general public in San Francisco, California. Mass-media and grassroots messaging raised citywide awareness of hepatitis B and promoted use of the existing health care system for hepatitis B screening and follow-up. Coalition partners reported semi-annually on activities, resources utilized, and system changes instituted. From 2007 to 2009, over 150 organizations contributed approximately $1,000,000 in resources to the San Francisco Hep B Free campaign. 40 educational events reached 1,100 healthcare providers, and 50% of primary care physicians pledged to screen APIs routinely for hepatitis B. Community events and fairs reached over 200,000 members of the general public. Of 3,315 API clients tested at stand-alone screening sites created by the campaign, 6.5% were found to be chronically infected and referred to follow-up care. A grassroots coalition that develops strong partnerships with diverse organizations can use existing resources to successfully increase public and healthcare provider awareness about hepatitis B among APIs, promote routine hepatitis B testing and vaccination as part of standard primary care, and ensure access to treatment for chronically infected individuals

Measuring capacity building in communities: a review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although communities have long been exhorted to make efforts to enhance their own health, such approaches have often floundered and resulted in little or no health benefits when the capacity of the community has not been adequately strengthened. Thus being able to assess the capacity building process is paramount in facilitating action in communities for social and health improvement. The current review aims to i) identify all domains used in systematically documented frameworks developed by other authors to assess community capacity building; and ii) to identify the dimensions and attributes of each of the domains as ascribed by these authors and reassemble them into a comprehensive compilation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Relevant published articles were identified through systematic electronic searches of selected databases and the examination of the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Studies assessing capacity building or community development or community participation were selected and assessed for methodological quality, and quality in relation to the development and application of domains which were identified as constituents of community capacity building. Data extraction and analysis were undertaken using a realist synthesis approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighteen articles met the criteria for this review. The various domains to assess community capacity building were identified and reassembled into nine comprehensive domains: "learning opportunities and skills development", "resource mobilization", "partnership/linkages/networking", "leadership", "participatory decision-making", "assets-based approach", "sense of community", "communication", and "development pathway". Six sub-domains were also identified: "shared vision and clear goals", "community needs assessment", "process and outcome monitoring", "sustainability", "commitment to action" and "dissemination".</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The set of domains compiled in this review serve as a foundation for community-based work by those in the field seeking to support and nurture the development of competent communities. Further research is required to examine the robustness of capacity domains over time and to examine capacity development in association with health or other social outcomes.</p

Partnerships: survey respondents' perceptions of inter-professional collaboration to address alcohol-related harms in England

Tackling alcohol-related harms crosses agency and professional boundaries, requiring collaboration between health, criminal justice, education and social welfare institutions. It is a key component of most multicomponent programmes in the United States, Australia and Europe. Partnership working, already embedded in service delivery structures, is a core mechanism for delivery of the new UK Government Alcohol Strategy. This article reports findings from a study of alcohol partnerships across England. The findings are based on a mix of open discussion interviews with key informants and on semi-structured telephone interviews with 90 professionals with roles in local alcohol partnerships. Interviewees reported the challenges of working within a complex network of interlinked partnerships, often within hierarchies under an umbrella partnership, some of them having a formal duty of partnership. The new alcohol strategy has emerged at a time of extensive reorganisation within health, social care and criminal justice structures. Further development of a partnership model for policy implementation would benefit from consideration of the incompatibility arising from required collaboration and from tensions between institutional and professional cultures. A clearer analysis of which aspects of partnership working provide ‘added value’ is needed

Effects on alcohol related fatal crashes of a community based initiative to increase substance abuse treatment and reduce alcohol availability

Objective: This analysis tested whether comprehensive community interventions that focus on reducing alcohol availability and increasing substance abuse treatment can reduce alcohol related fatal traffic crashes. Intervention: Five of 14 communities awarded Fighting Back grants by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to reduce substance abuse and related problems attempted to reduce availability of alcohol and expand substance abuse treatment programs (FBAT communities). Program implementation began on 1 January 1992. Design: A quasi-experimental design matched each program community to two or three other communities of similar demographic composition in the same state. Main outcome measures: The ratio of fatal crashes involving a driver or pedestrian with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.01% or higher, 0.08% or higher, or 0.15% or higher were examined relative to fatal crashes where no alcohol was involved for 10 years preceding and 10 years following program initiation. Results: Relative to their comparison communities, the five FBAT communities experienced significant declines of 22% in alcohol related fatal crashes at 0.01% BAC or higher, 20% at 0.08% or higher, and 17% at 0.15% or higher relative to fatal crashes not involving alcohol. Conclusions: Community interventions to reduce alcohol availability and increase substance abuse treatment can reduce alcohol related fatal traffic crashes