Cancer assessment methodology in a native Hawaiian community

Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Initial Implementation of Advanced Home Visits in Chile

Home visiting programs are evidence-based interventions that have a myriad outcomes for mothers and newborns. Chile offers these services as part of the Chile Crece Contigo, a nationwide program. However, implementing home visiting programs in community settings is difficult. In this study, we report clinic, provider, and participant engagement with the implementation of advanced home visits (ViDAs) in Chilean primary care clinics. ViDAs include a high number of visits, external supervision, and the use of technology. In this study, qualitative and quantitative data were collected to assess the initial implementation of the home visiting strategy. Qualitative data consisted of individual interviews and focus groups with directors of city health departments, clinic managers, and providers conducting home visits. Quantitative data included clinic, provider, and participant recruitment. City health departments were approached to authorize the participation of primary care clinics in the ViDAs program. Then, clinic directors were invited to approve the implementation of the home visiting program at their health centers. In total, 16 clinics, 42 practitioners, and 185 participants were recruited. A large amount of resources was needed to recruit clinics, providers, and participants. The intervention had low acceptability, low adoption, and a high implementation cost. Initial program implementation experienced several challenges. Identified facilitators and barriers both highlighted the need for community engagement at all levels for the successful implementation of an innovation in Chilean primary care clinics. In addition, this article provides recommendations for practitioners and researchers regarding the conduct of research in community-based settings.

Best Practices for Community-Engaged Research with Pacific Islander Communities in the US and USAPI: A Scoping Review

This scoping review identifies the best practices of community-based participatory research with Pacific Islanders in the United States and United States Affiliated Pacific Islands. Eighty-four articles from January 2000 to December 2017 were included in the review. Best practices included the importance of engaging Pacific Islander community leaders as research staff, community co-investigators, and community advisory board members. Best practices also focused on removing barriers to research by using participants' native languages, conducting research within the geographic community, and spending significant time to build trust. Novel best practices included honoring Pacific Islanders' cultural practices such as protocols for engagement, reciprocity, and social and spiritual inclusiveness and honoring Pacific Islanders' collectivist cultural structure. The goal of this scoping review is to aid community-academic partnerships working to improve the health of Pacific Islanders.

Combining Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) with a Random-Sample Survey to Assess Smoking Prevalence in an Under-Served Community

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Laura McClure for her help with the manuscript submission, the Liberty City Community Health Advisory Board for its collaboration on this study, as well as the survey interviewers, and the survey participants.

INTRODUCTION

Underserved communities might lag behind Healthy People 2010 objectives of smoking reduction because of smoking behavior disparities. This possibility was investigated through a random-sample survey conducted in a disenfranchised community in Miami-Dade County, Florida, using a Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework. The survey was triggered by our finding that this community had higher than expected incidence of tobacco-associated cancers.

METHODS

Survey methods, resulting from a dialog between the Community Advisory Board and academic researchers, included: (a) surveying adult residents of a public housing complex located within the community; (b) probability sampling; (c) face-to-face interviews administered by trained community residents. 250 households were sampled from 750 addresses provided by the county Public Housing Agency. The completed surveys were reviewed by the academic team, yielding 204 questionnaires for the current analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 204 respondents, 38% were current smokers. They estimated the percentages of smokers in their household and among their five best friends at 33% and 42%, respectively, and among adults and youth in the community at 72% and 53%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A mix of state-of-art methodology with CBPR principles is seldom encountered in the current literature. It allowed the research team to find a high smoking prevalence in an underserved community, twice the statewide and nationwide estimates. Similar or higher levels of smoking were perceived in respondent's entourage. Such disparity in smoking behavior, unlikely to result from self-selection bias because of our rigorous methodology, calls for community-specific tobacco control efforts commensurate to the magnitude of the problem.