The Kaiser Family Foundation Community Health Promotion Grants Program: findings from an outcome evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To present results from an outcome evaluation of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation's Community Health Promotion Grants Program (CHPGP) in the West, which represented a major community-based initiative designed to promote improved health by changing community norms, environmental conditions, and individual behavior in 11 western communities. METHODS: The evaluation design: 14 randomly assigned intervention and control communities, 4 intervention communities selected on special merit, and 4 matched controls. Data for the outcome evaluation were obtained from surveys, administered every two years at three points in time, of community leaders and representative adults and adolescents, and from specially designed surveys of grocery stores. Outcomes for each of the 11 intervention communities were compared with outcomes in control communities. RESULTS: With the exception of two intervention communities-a largely Hispanic community and a Native American reservation-we found little evidence of positive changes in the outcomes targeted by the 11 intervention communities. The programs that demonstrated positive outcomes targeted dietary behavior and adolescent substance abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement of health through community-based interventions remains a critical public health challenge. The CHPGP, like other prominent community-based initiatives, generally failed to produce measurable changes in the targeted health outcomes. Efforts should focus on developing theories and methods that can improve the design and evaluation of community-based interventions.

Cost and outcomes of Medicare reimbursement for HMO preventive services.

Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO) were randomized to a preventive services benefit package for 2 years or to usual care. At 24- and 48-month follow-ups, the treatment group had completed more advance directives, participated in more exercise, and consumed less dietary fat than the control group. Unexpectedly, more deaths occurred in the treatment group. Surviving treatment-group enrollees reported higher satisfaction with health, less decline in self-rated health status, and fewer depressive symptoms than surviving control participants. Despite these changes, the intervention did not yield lower cost per quality-adjusted life year in this historically prevention-oriented HMO.

Implementation of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation's Community Health Promotion Grant Program: a process evaluation.

The Community Health Promotion Grants Program, sponsored by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, represents a major health initiative that established 11 community health promotion projects. Successful implementation was characterized by several critical factors: (1) intervention activities; (2) community activation; (3) success in obtaining external funding; and (4) institutionalization. Analysis of the program was based on data from several sources: program reports, key informant surveys, and a community coalition survey. Results indicate that school-based programs focusing on adolescent health problems were the most successful in reaching the populations they were targeting. The majority of the programs were able to attract external funding, thereby adding to their initial resource base. The programs were less successful in generating health promotion activities and in achieving meaningful institutionalization in their communities.

Conference report: community-based health promotion--state of the art and recommendations for the future.

The evaluators of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Community Health Promotion Grants Program in the West and the Foundation brought together 21 researchers, funders, and community organizers with a variety of perspectives on community-based health promotion to share what has been learned to date and how that knowledge should be applied in the future. The two-day conference was divided into three sessions, covering conceptual, implementation, and evaluation issues. Specific topics were selected by the organizers with input from participants. Two papers were presented in each session, followed by comments from discussants and a general discussion involving the entire group. The dominant theme of the conference was the relationship between communities and outside institutions, focusing on problems with the current state of relations and how they might be improved in the future. All viewed building partnerships between communities and institutions as a desirable goal; however, the challenges involved in building effective partnerships are considerable and require a substantial investment to make them work. Recommendations that emerged from the discussions included explicitly acknowledging the diverse interests of the parties in community-based programs at the earliest stages of program planning; making a concerted effort to bridge the cultural gaps that exist among the parties; structuring funding to allow enough lead time for partnerships to develop or using social reconnaissance to identify strong existing partnerships; and integrating the evaluation more closely into the process of program development.

Health care providers and violence: opportunities for action.

Staff at Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound have undertaken numerous strategies and community alliances in an effort to decrease violence in their community. Beginning with pilot programs and interventions for their own providers and enrollees, programs now focus on strengthening the community, controlling firearms, and supporting youth.

Managed care and public health: building a partnership.

Critics today charge that managed care organizations, intent on reducing costs to ensure survival and profitability, have forsaken public health. In fact, managed care and public health face common challenges and share common interests. Public health problems ultimately affect managed care enrollees and increase the cost of their care. Managed care organizations, then, must help reduce community-wide health risks. Public health agencies, traditionally responsible for population health, today face serious challenges due to budget reductions and public indifference. The article to follow proposes a model for mutually beneficial collaboration between managed care and public health. Programs linking managed care with public health in the Puget Sound area illustrate this model's feasibility and value.

A modified health risk appraisal as a component of a senior health promotion program.

Because of their comprehensive service capabilities and traditional focus on prevention, HMOs have an outstanding potential for contributing to health promotion and disease prevention among special populations. But HMOs must acknowledge the special needs of key groups and modify traditional offerings accordingly. This article describes the use of the health risk appraisal (HRA) in a program, A Healthy Future, aimed at promoting health and preventing disease among elders. Unlike ¿standard¿ HRAs, this program developed questions of special pertinence to elders and used face-to-face, human contact for communicating results. Most important, the program linked the HRA to primary care and to interventions particularly useful and acceptable to elders.

Group Health Cooperative's community services initiative.

Service to the broader community is an important component of Group Health Cooperative's (GHC's) tradition, values, and mission. The role and potential of community services in a staff model HMO requires consensus, careful planning and communication, and attention to results. This paper describes GHC's efforts to define, implement, and sustain its community services initiative.

Activating communities for health promotion: a process evaluation method.

OBJECTIVES: To date, evaluations of community-based prevention programs have focused on assessing outcomes, not the process of organizing communities for health promotion. An approach was developed to analyze community organization efforts aimed at advancing community health objectives. These organizational processes are referred to as community activation. METHODS: Information was gathered from 762 informants through a key informant survey conducted in 28 western communities. The data collected included informant ratings of community activation and information about interorganizational activities analyzed through network analytic techniques. RESULTS: Activation levels, as measured by informant ratings, varied across communities. Program coordination, as measured by network analysis, occurred, on average, approximately 30% of the time. Higher income communities tended to be more activated than lower income communities. CONCLUSIONS: There is a widely recognized need for improved information about health-related community organization activities. It appears possible to gather such information through key informant surveys and to develop measures of community organization status that can be used in the evaluation of community health promotion programs.

Community activation and health promotion: identification of key organizations.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to identify the kinds of community organizations community leaders consider important for community health promotion efforts. DESIGN: Key informants were identified by reputational sampling of organizations relevant to community health promotion. Key informants were asked to list organizations they considered important for community health promotion. Differences in identified organizations were compared across informants from seven urban, five suburban, seven rural, and three Native American communities, with significance evaluated by chi-square tests. SETTING: This survey was conducted in 22 Western U.S. communities comprising the intervention and control communities of the Community Health Promotion Grants Program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. SUBJECTS: Key informants (N = 184) from community organizations, identified using a reputational sampling technique beginning with the health department, were interviewed by telephone. MEASURES: Key informants listed organizations considered important for community health promotion in five areas: adolescent pregnancy, substance abuse, tobacco use, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Informants frequently identified the health department (mentioned by 78% of informants overall), schools (72%), governmental agencies (55%), hospitals (47%), health clinics (42%), churches (33%), and newspapers (32%) as important. Organizations more prominent in urban and suburban areas than in rural and Native American areas included television stations, health-related private nonprofit organizations, substance abuse treatment centers, and colleges. Private physicians were frequently identified in rural areas (44% of informants).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The evaluation of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation's Community Health Promotion Grant Program: design.

The Kaiser Family Foundation's Community Health Promotion Grant Program (CHPGP) provides funding and technical assistance in support of community-based efforts to prevent major health problems. The first phase of the program was implemented in 11 communities in the western United States. This paper describes the evaluation design of the CHPGP in the West, the methods of data collection, and the baseline comparability of intervention and control communities. Major features of the evaluation design include: (1) the randomization of qualified communities making application into funded and unfunded comparison groups; (2) a second set of matched control communities for some intervention sites; (3) data gathering through repeated surveys of community residents (probability samples of adults and adolescents) and institutions (health-related organizations and randomly sampled grocery stores and restaurants); and (4) the use of secondary data to monitor health events. Selected baseline data show that intervention and control communities differ in racial/ethnic composition, but relevant health behaviors and ratings of community activation for health promotion appear comparable.

Health risk appraisal: review of evidence for effectiveness.

Since its introduction some two decades ago, health risk appraisal (HRA) has become a standard offering in the health promotion repertoire. The technique's distinctive feature is its use of epidemiologic data to generate quantitative risk messages for the client. Yet despite the dedication and considerable investments that have gone into HRA's development, dissemination, and use, there is only limited empirical evidence that these quantitative risk messages have any effect on clients. There do not appear to be any formal studies of HRA's effect on participation in health promotion programs, although increasing recruitment is regarded as a major benefit of using HRA. There are few indications of HRA effects on health beliefs. Most positive reports of effects on behavior change come from uncontrolled studies; several randomized controlled trials have yielded ambiguous findings. Virtually no data exist concerning the impact of the quantitative risk messages that distinguish HRA from other assessment techniques and that have motivated the substantial efforts toward developing and refining HRA. HRA has evident appeal and is probably a useful health education device for middle-class, middle-aged, nonminority clients. It may well have desirable effects on health-related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors when accompanied by counseling or education, but available evidence has not established its effectiveness. Given the difficulty of obtaining definitive evidence of the effectiveness of HRA and specifically of its use of quantitative risk projections, the need for such evidence is debatable. An adequately funded and reviewed research program to examine whether projections of absolute risk affect knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and intention to change is recommended as the most fruitful next step. Epidemiologically based HRA procedures that provide feedback in terms of qualitative statements or relative risk may be a promising approach to prospective health assessment.

A review of hospital-based health promotion programs in Michigan non-governmental hospitals.

In 1983, the 217 hospitals of the Michigan Hospital Association (MHA) were surveyed to learn more about their efforts in health promotion programming. Eighty percent (174 hospitals) responded to the survey, with 48% reporting on 532 programs. Those programs included 216 in health promotion as defined by the survey instructions, 110 in disease management, 66 in first aid and safety, 87 screening, and 53 miscellaneous education programs. Further particulars about the programs are presented, including information regarding program audience, times offered per year, median enrollment, median participant hours, program age, number and type of educational methods used, follow-up methods, and fees charged. Hospital administrators' perceptions regarding health promotion programs were also surveyed. They indicated a higher level of interest in providing such programs because they viewed them as a needed community service. Conversely, they did not see them as a revenue generator. Seventy-two percent of the responding administrators indicated they currently offered health promotion programs, although only 48% submitted information regarding them. Seventy percent said they planned to begin new health promotion programs within the next 12 months, while only 6% planned to discontinue programs in the new year.

An assessment of health hazard/health risk appraisal.

A state-of-the-art review of a widely-used health promotion technique, the health hazard/health risk appraisal (HHA/HRA), was conducted. The review included preparing a 212-item annotated bibliography, compiling an inventory of 217 programs that have used HHA/HRA, holding discussions with HHA/HRA developers and users, conducting formal site visits to 15 HHA/HRA programs, and consultation with experts on epidemiology, biostatistics, and behavioral science as well as developers and users of HHA/HRA. Programs use HHA/HRA primarily as a promotional device, as a tool for structuring education about health-related behaviors, and as a motivational device for stimulating behavioral change. The scientific basis for HHA/HRA risk predictions is problematic, but their arithmetic imprecision is of less concern than insufficiency of the scientific evidence for certain behavioral recommendations, and inaccuracies in client-supplied data. Widely-held beliefs in HHA/HRA's efficacy for motivating behavioral change cannot be substantiated from available evidence, nor can the assumed absence of adverse effects. The importance of this particular health promotion technique appears to have been exaggerated.

The role of the health facilitator in community health education.

A community health education program has been established by the Department of Community Health Sciences of Duke University Medical Center in two target areas of Durham County, North Carolina. The program trains unpaid lay people, "health facilitators", to whom others already turn for help, to increase their competency for advising and referring community residents to appropriate community resources. Several methods for identifying potential health facilitators have been developed. Evaluation of the role of health facilitators hinges upon designing measures to demonstrate their existence in the community and the impact that they make. To be successful, the training of health facilitators should result in improving the quality of the advice they give their fellows. It is also important to assess the cultural acceptability of the facilitators' advice and to ensure that their helping role in the community is not disturbed by the possible professionalization of their role due to the training program.