Enhancing capacity for risk factor surveillance at the regional/local level: a follow-up review of the findings of the Canadian Think Tank Forum after 4 years.

BACKGROUND: National health surveys are sometimes used to provide estimates on risk factors for policy and program development at the regional/local level. However, as regional/local needs may differ from national ones, an important question is how to also enhance capacity for risk factor surveillance regionally/locally. METHODS: A Think Tank Forum was convened in Canada to discuss the needs, characteristics, coordination, tools and next steps to build capacity for regional/local risk factor surveillance. A series of follow up activities to review the relevant issues pertaining to needs, characteristics and capacity of risk factor surveillance were conducted. RESULTS: Results confirmed the need for a regional/local risk factor surveillance system that is flexible, timely, of good quality, having a communication plan, and responsive to local needs. It is important to conduct an environmental scan and a gap analysis, to develop a common vision, to build central and local coordination and leadership, to build on existing tools and resources, and to use innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of the Think Tank Forum are important for building surveillance capacity at the local/county level, both in Canada and globally. This paper provides a follow-up review of the findings based on progress over the last 4 years.

Development of a rural health framework: implications for program service planning and delivery.

PURPOSE: To describe the development and application of an evidence-based rural health framework to guide rural health program, policy and service planning. METHODS: A literature review of rural health programs, focusing on health promotion, chronic disease prevention and population health, was conducted using several bibliographic databases. FINDINGS: Thirty papers met the criteria for review, describing chronic disease interventions and public health policies in rural settings. Twenty-one papers demonstrated effective intervention programs and highlighted potential good practices for rural health programs, which were used to define key elements of a rural health framework. CONCLUSIONS: The rural health framework was applied to an influenza immunization program to demonstrate its utility in assisting public health providers to increase uptake of the vaccine. This rural health framework provides an opportunity for program planners to reflect on the key issues facing rural communities to ensure the development of policies and strategies that will prudently and effectively meet population health needs.

Training in social determinants of health in primary care: does it change resident behavior?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of a new social determinants of health curriculum on pediatric interns' attitudes, knowledge, documentation, and clinical practice. METHODS: A nonrandomized mixed-methods study of an educational intervention conducted over a 1-year period was performed. The 2008-2009 pediatric interns (intervention group) participated in a new social determinants of health curriculum; prior year interns were controls. An anonymous online survey at the end of internship to both groups (post-tests) and the beginning of internship to the intervention group (pretest) assessed attitudes and knowledge. Documentation from the electronic medical record of social history questions was audited during the same 3-month period in successive years. Medical-legal partnership (MLP) referrals from both groups were compared. RESULTS: Intervention interns (n = 20) were more comfortable discussing issues (100% vs. 71%; P < .01) and felt more knowledgeable regarding issues (100% vs. 64%; P = .005), community resources (94% vs. 29%; P < .001), and housing (39% vs. 6%; P = .04) than control group interns (n = 18). No differences regarding the importance of social hardships or screening for food security or education issues were found. Knowledge was greater in the intervention group post-test in all domains: benefits (72% vs. 52%), housing (48% vs. 21%), and education (52% vs. 33%; P < .001 for all). Intervention interns were more likely to document each issue (benefits 98% vs. 60%, housing 93% vs. 57%, food 74% vs. 56%; P < .001 for all). The intervention group had a slightly higher rate of referral to MLP, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The educational intervention increased interns' comfort and knowledge of social determinants of health and community resources. Documentation of social questions also increased.