Designing Place-Based Interventions for Sustainability and Replicability: The Case of GO! Austin/VAMOS! Austin

Place-based health efforts account for the role of the community environment in shaping decisions and circumstances that affect population well-being. Such efforts, rooted as they are in the theory that health is socially determined, mobilize resources for health promotion that are not typically used, and offer a more informed and robust way of promoting health outcomes within a community. Common criticisms of place-based work include the difficulty of replication, since engagement is so specific to a place, and limited sustainability of the work, in the absence of continued institutional structures, both within the community and supporting structures outside the community, to keep these initiatives resilient. This paper describes a place-based initiative, GO! Austin/VAMOS! Austin (GAVA), which was designed to harness the strengths of place-based work-namely, its specificity to place and community. From the start, the project was designed to balance this specificity with a focus on developing and utilizing a standardized set of evidence-informed implementation and evaluation approaches and tools that were flexible enough to be modified for specific settings. This was accompanied by an emphasis on leadership and capacity building within resident leaders, which provided for informed intervention and demand building capacity, but also for longevity as partners, philanthropic, and otherwise, moved in and out of the work.

[To analyse the transferability of an intervention : applying the functions/implementation/context model on a diabetes prevention programme]

INTRODUCTION

A type 2 diabetes primary prevention programme that was shown to be feasible and effective in 2003 was transferred to another vulnerable district of Reunion Island in 2004, but its short-term effectiveness could not be reproduced. Based on this example, this article analyses whether the key functions/implementation/context model can be useful to : 1- more accurately describe an evaluated intervention ; and 2- identify the factors involved in the transferability of this intervention.

METHODS

The causality model of the initial programme is described. We then identified the key functions (or theoretical processes) of this initial programme, implementation of these functions, and the context in which the intervention took place. Transfer was analysed by focusing on the differences between the initial programme and the transferred programme in terms of key functions, implementation and context.

RESULTS

The causality model involves individual, meso-social, and environmental health determinants. Our analysis of programme transfer highlights differences in : key functions (two key functions dropped, one key function added, one key function modified), implementation (failure to implement, loss/improvement of quality), and context (population and socioeconomic level of the district concerned).

CONCLUSION

This work supports the hypothesis that the key functions/implementation/context model can be useful to improve the description of an intervention, and analyse the factors involved in its transferability.

Theorising interventions as events in systems

Conventional thinking about preventive interventions focuses over simplistically on the "package" of activities and/or their educational messages. An alternative is to focus on the dynamic properties of the context into which the intervention is introduced. Schools, communities and worksites can be thought of as complex ecological systems. They can be theorised on three dimensions: (1) their constituent activity settings (e.g., clubs, festivals, assemblies, classrooms); (2) the social networks that connect the people and the settings; and (3) time. An intervention may then be seen as a critical event in the history of a system, leading to the evolution of new structures of interaction and new shared meanings. Interventions impact on evolving networks of person-time-place interaction, changing relationships, displacing existing activities and redistributing and transforming resources. This alternative view has significant implications for how interventions should be evaluated and how they could be made more effective. We explore this idea, drawing on social network analysis and complex systems theory.

To be seen, confirmed and involved--a ten year follow-up of perceived health and cardiovascular risk factors in a Swedish community intervention programme

Background

Public health interventions are directed towards social systems and it is difficult to foresee all consequences. While targeted outcomes may be positively influenced, interventions may at worst be counterproductive. To include self-reported health in an evaluation is one way of addressing possible side-effects. This study is based on a 10 year follow-up of a cardiovascular community intervention programme in northern Sweden.

Methods

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to address the interaction between changes in self-rated health and risk factor load. Qualitative interviews contributed to an analysis of how the outcome was influenced by health related norms and attitudes.

Results

Most people maintained a low risk factor load and a positive perception of health. However, more people improved than deteriorated their situation regarding both perceived health and risk factor load. "Ideal types" of attitude sets towards the programme, generated from the interviews, helped to interpret an observed polarisation for men and the lower educated.

Conclusion

Our observation of a socially and gender differentiated intervention effect suggests a need to test new intervention strategies. Future community interventions may benefit from targeting more directly those who in combination with high risk factor load perceive their health as bad and to make all participants feel seen, confirmed and involved.