Resident health advocates in public housing family developments.

Translation of research to practice often needs intermediaries to help the process occur. Our Prevention Research Center has identified a total of 89 residents of public housing in the last 11 years who have been working in the Resident Health Advocate (RHA) program to engage residents in improving their own and other residents' health status by becoming trained in skills needed by community health workers. Future directions include training for teens to become Teen RHAs and further integration of our RHA program with changes in the health care system and in the roles of community health workers in general.

Enhancing physical and social environments to reduce obesity among public housing residents: rationale, trial design, and baseline data for the Healthy Families study.

Intervention programs that change environments have the potential for greater population impact on obesity compared to individual-level programs. We began a cluster randomized, multi-component multi-level intervention to improve weight, diet, and physical activity among low-socioeconomic status public housing residents. Here we describe the rationale, intervention design, and baseline survey data. After approaching 12 developments, ten were randomized to intervention (n=5) or assessment-only control (n=5). All residents in intervention developments are welcome to attend any intervention component: health screenings, mobile food bus, walking groups, cooking demonstrations, and a social media campaign; all of which are facilitated by community health workers who are residents trained in health outreach. To evaluate weight and behavioral outcomes, a subgroup of female residents and their daughters age 8-15 were recruited into an evaluation cohort. In total, 211 households completed the survey (RR=46.44%). Respondents were Latino (63%), Black (24%), and had ≤ high school education (64%). Respondents reported ≤2 servings of fruits & vegetables/day (62%), visiting fast food restaurants 1+ times/week (32%), and drinking soft drinks daily or more (27%). The only difference between randomized groups was race/ethnicity, with more Black residents in the intervention vs. control group (28% vs. 19%, p=0.0146). Among low-socioeconomic status urban public housing residents, we successfully recruited and randomized families into a multi-level intervention targeting obesity. If successful, this intervention model could be adopted in other public housing developments or entities that also employ community health workers, such as food assistance programs or hospitals.

What do public housing residents say about their health?

BACKGROUND: Residents of public housing have poorer health indicators than comparably resourced individuals from the larger community. OBJECTIVES: To identify major health concerns, issues, and barriers to health of community members living in public housing developments, especially as related to cardiovascular disease prevention. To identify similarities and differences between data collected using two methods to inform future health promotion programs and policies. METHODS: Key informant interviews were conducted with resident leaders and analyzed qualitatively in eight housing developments. Results were compared with quantitative data collected from a resident health survey with a large sample that analyzed individual and development-level characteristics, major health concerns, and barriers. RESULTS: Several development-level characteristics were significantly associated with residents' health concerns and barriers, including development size, percentage of Spanish speakers, and presence of a tenant task force (TTF); important health promotion barriers included lack of resident engagement, inconsistency in programming, lack of knowledge of actions to prevent chronic disease, and lack of resources for health promotion. Safety-related health concerns were named as a priority. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple data collection methods can yield important data about community health priorities and barriers; areas of difference and similarity between methods are especially useful in guiding health promotion efforts and opportunities.

Connecting Boston's public housing developments to community health centers: who's ready for change?

BACKGROUND: Despite close proximity to community health centers, public housing residents are at increased risk of uncontrolled chronic disease, in part because of underutilization of routine health care. OBJECTIVES: To assist in program planning, the Partners in Health and Housing Prevention Research Center (PHH-PRC) used the Community Readiness Model to compare readiness of public housing developments and community health centers to address community-identified health priorities. The model assumes that program success to affect change depends on matching the community's level of readiness to address the issue. METHODS: Key respondent interviews were conducted across 15 communities: Eight housing developments and seven health centers. Interviews were scored across six dimensions on an anchored, 9-point scale and averaged to provide a composite readiness score. Higher scores indicate increasing levels of readiness. Interview transcripts were reviewed for consistent themes. RESULTS: Health centers scored significantly higher (mean, 5.88) than housing developments (mean, 3.33), corresponding with the Preparation stage of readiness compared with the Vague Awareness stage, respectively. Both scored highest in Existing Programs and Resources and lowest in Knowledge of Efforts. Qualitative analysis revealed a lack of existing partnerships between housing developments and health centers as well as significant social barriers preventing housing residents from engaging in care. CONCLUSION: We found a mismatch in readiness to address community health priorities. Although health centers have programs to address health issues, community awareness of programs is limited and barriers to engaging in care persist. The model provided a useful tool for engaging communities into shared program planning.

Using resident health advocates to improve public health screening and follow-up among public housing residents, Boston, 2007-2008.

INTRODUCTION: Promoting screening for hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, and dental disease, particularly among residents of public housing, is a key strategy for achieving the objectives of Healthy People 2010. This community-based participatory research study tested a resident health advocate (RHA) intervention in public housing to increase use of mobile screening and to assess postscreening follow-up care for people with positive screening results. METHODS: During the summers of 2007 and 2008, a mobile health unit screened residents at 4 housing developments for hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes risk, and dental disease. In the first summer, at 2 intervention sites, RHAs used personal contacts and repeated flyers to recruit residents; 2 control sites received standard recruitment, which was to leave flyers with the development manager. In the second summer, the 2 control sites from the previous year became intervention sites. For both summers combined, we calculated the number of people at intervention and control sites who used the van and we examined rates of appointments made and kept for residents who had positive screening test results. RESULTS: Screening rates were higher in the intervention condition compared with the control condition (relative risk [RR], 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-2.15). Approximately 65% of participants screened positive for at least 1 condition. The proportion of participants with screen-positive findings who had follow-up appointments increased from 15% in 2007 to 55% in 2008. CONCLUSION: The use of RHAs increased participation in health screening among public housing residents and rates of follow-up medical visits for people with positive screening results.