domingo, 5 de octubre de 2014

Preventing Chronic Disease | Institution-to-Institution Mentoring to Build Capacity in 24 Local US Health Departments: Best Practices and Lessons Learned - CDC

FULL-TEXT ►

Preventing Chronic Disease | Institution-to-Institution Mentoring to Build Capacity in 24 Local US Health Departments: Best Practices and Lessons Learned - CDC



Secondhand Smoke Facts

Photo of an e-card

Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure. Inside this e-card, learn the importance of making your home and vehicle smoke-free.


Preventing Chronic Disease Logo



Institution-to-Institution Mentoring to Build Capacity in 24 Local US Health Departments: Best Practices and Lessons Learned

Maggie Veatch, MPH; Gail P. Goldstein, MPH; Rachel Sacks, MPH; Megan Lent, MPH; Gretchen Van Wye, PhD, MA

Suggested citation for this article: Veatch M, Goldstein GP, Sacks R, Lent M, Van Wye G. Institution-to-Institution Mentoring to Build Capacity in 24 Local US Health Departments: Best Practices and Lessons Learned. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:140017. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.140017External Web Site Icon.
PEER REVIEWED

Abstract

Introduction
Institutional mentoring may be a useful capacity-building model to support local health departments facing public health challenges. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene conducted a qualitative evaluation of an institutional mentoring program designed to increase capacity of health departments seeking to address chronic disease prevention. The mentoring program included 2 program models, a one-to-one model and a collaborative model, developed and implemented for 24 Communities Putting Prevention to Work grantee communities nationwide.
Methods
We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews to assess grantees’ perspectives on the effectiveness of the mentoring program in supporting their work. Two interviews were conducted with key informants from each participating community. Three evaluators coded and analyzed data using ATLAS.ti software and using grounded theory to identify emerging themes.
Results
We completed 90 interviews with 44 mentees. We identified 7 key program strengths: learning from the New York City health department’s experience, adapting resources to local needs, incorporating new approaches and sharing strategies, developing the mentor–mentee relationship, creating momentum for action, establishing regular communication, and encouraging peer interaction.
Conclusion
Participants overwhelmingly indicated that the mentoring program’s key strengths improved their capacity to address chronic disease prevention in their communities. We recommend dissemination of the results achieved, emphasizing the need to adapt the institutional mentoring model to local needs to achieve successful outcomes. We also recommend future research to consider whether a hybrid programmatic model that includes regular one-on-one communication and in-person conferences could be used as a standard framework for institutional mentoring.

flow chart
Figure. New York City Communities Putting Prevention to Work mentoring grant evaluation logic model, displaying the DOHMH planning process and results related to the 2 program model types used in the institutional mentoring program, the collaborative model, and the one-to-one model, 2010–2012. Abbreviation: NYC DOHMH, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; TA, technical assistance; C, collaborative model; O, one-to-one model. [A text description of this figure is also available.]

Acknowledgments

This project was supported in part by the New York City DOHMH and by cooperative agreement no. 3U58DP002419-01S1 from CDC CPPW. Users of this document should be aware that every funding source has different requirements governing the appropriate use of those funds. Under US law, no federal funds are permitted to be used for lobbying or to influence, directly or indirectly, specific pieces of pending or proposed legislation at the federal, state, or local levels. Organizations should consult appropriate legal counsel to ensure compliance with all rules, regulations, and restriction of any funding sources. The authors acknowledge the invaluable contributions of Jenny Fernandez to this project. At the time of the study, Maggie Veatch, Gail P. Goldstein, and Gretchen Van Wye were with the Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Tobacco Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Author Information

Corresponding Author: Maggie Veatch, MPH, Director, Nutrition and Physical Activity, Brooklyn District Public Health Office, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 485 Throop Ave, Brooklyn NY 11221. Telephone: 718-637-5211. E-mail: mveatch@health.nyc.gov.
Author Affiliations: Gail P. Goldstein, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Use Prevention, Care and Treatment, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Queens, New York; Rachel Sacks, Megan Lent, Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Tobacco Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Queens, New York; Gretchen Van Wye, Bureau of Vital Statistics, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, New York.

References

  1. Gagliardi AR, Perrier L, Webster F, Leslie K, Bell M, Levisnon W, et al. Exploring mentorship as a strategy to build capacity for knowledge translation research and practice: protocol for a qualitative study. Implement Sci 2009;4(1):55. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  2. Spadaro AJ, Grunbaum JA, Dawkins NU, Wright DS, Rubel SK, Green DC. Training and technical assistance to enhance capacity building between prevention research centers and their partners. Prev Chronic Dis 2011;8(3):A65. PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  3. Macleod ML, Dosman JA, Kulig JC, Medves JM. The development of the Canadian Rural Health Research Society: creating capacity through connections. Rural Remote Health 2007;7(1):622. PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  4. Roussos ST, Fawcett SB. A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annu Rev Public Health 2000;21:369–402.CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  5. Mitchell RE, Florin P, Stevenson JF. Supporting community-based prevention and health promotion initiatives: developing effective technical assistance systems. Health Educ Behav 2002;29(5):620–39. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  6. Thornton AH, Barrow M, Niemeyer D, Burrus B, Gertel AS, Krueger D, et al. Identifying and responding to technical assistance and training needs in tobacco prevention and control. Health Promot Pract 2004;5(3 suppl):159S–66S. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  7. School meal programs: sharing information on best practices may improve programs’ operations: report to the Secretary of Agriculture GAO/RCED-97-126. Washington (DC): United States General Accounting Office; 1997. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-97-126. Accessed September 15, 2013.
  8. Bunnell R, O’Neil D, Soler R, Payne R, Giles WH, Collins J, et al. Fifty communities putting prevention to work: accelerating chronic disease prevention through policy, systems and environmental change. J Community Health 2012;37(5):1081–90. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  9. Beitsch LM, Brooks RG, Menachemi N, Libbey PM. Public health at center stage: new roles, old props. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25(4):911–22. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  10. Frieden TR. Asleep at the switch: local public health and chronic disease. Am J Public Health 2004;94(12):2059–61. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  11. Kuiper H, Jackson RJ, Barna S, Satariano WA. Local health department leadership strategies for healthy built environments. J Public Health Manag Pract 2012;18(2):E11–23. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  12. Rube K, Veatch M, Huang K, Sacks R, Lent M, Goldstein GP, et al. Developing built environment programs in local health departments: lessons learned from a nationwide mentoring program. Am J Public Health 2014;104(5):e10–8. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  13. Frieden TR, Mostashari F, Kerker BD, Miller N, Hajat A, Frankel M. Adult tobacco use levels after intensive tobacco control measures: New York City, 2002-2003. Am J Public Health 2005;95(6):1016–23. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  14. Perlman SE, Nonas C, Lindstrom LL, Choe-Castillo J, McKie H, Alberti PM. A menu for health: changes to New York City School Food, 2001 to 2011. J Sch Health 2012;82(10):484–91. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  15. Boyd L, Hackett M, Magid E. Health departments helping hospitals: a New York City breastfeeding case study. Breastfeed Med 2011;6(5):267–9. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  16. Coady MH, Chan CA, Sacks R, Mbamalu IG, Kansagra SM. The impact of cigarette excise tax increases on purchasing behaviors among New York City smokers. Am J Public Health 2013;103(6):e54–60. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  17. Crosby RA, DiClemente RJ, Salazar LF. Research methods in health promotion San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass Inc; 2006. p 178-9.

No hay comentarios: