scholarly journals Better Health Durham: Community Engagement in a Cluster RCT of a Prevention Practitioner Intervention in Low-Income Neighbourhoods

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 22s-22s
Author(s):  
M.A. O'Brien ◽  
A. Lofters ◽  
B. Wall ◽  
A.D. Pinto ◽  
R. Elliott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Community Outreach ◽  
Chronic Disease Prevention ◽  
Cluster Rct

Background: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (BETTER) intervention has improved uptake of chronic disease prevention and screening activities in primary care. The BETTER intervention consists of 1:1 visits between prevention practitioners (PPs) and patients (40-65 years). It is unknown if an adapted BETTER could be effective in the community with public health nurses as PPs. Aim: The presentation objective is to describe community engagement strategies in a cluster RCT in low income neighborhoods with low cancer screening rates and low uptake of primary care. Methods: Principles of community-based participatory research were used to design the community engagement strategy in Durham region, Ontario. Key elements included close collaboration with public health partners to identify stakeholders and creating a community advisory committee (CAC) and a primary care engagement group to provide advice. Results: We identified 15 community stakeholder groups (∼47 subgroups) including service organizations, faith groups, and charitable organizations representing diverse constituents. Community outreach activities included in-person meetings and information displays at local events. The CAC is comprised of members of the public and representatives from primary care, social services, and community organizations. The CAC and primary care engagement groups have provided advice on trial recruitment strategies and on the design of the PP visit. Conclusion: The partnership between public health, primary care, and the study team has been crucial to connect with community stakeholders. Community engagement is essential in raising awareness about the study and will contribute to successful recruitment. Trial Registration: NCT03052959

scholarly journals Building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in public health: a cluster randomized trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. K. Lofters ◽  
M. A. O’Brien ◽  
R. Sutradhar ◽  
A. D. Pinto ◽  
N. N. Baxter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Chronic Disease Prevention ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Wait List ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Abstract Background The BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) intervention was designed to integrate the approach to chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care and demonstrated effective in a previous randomized trial. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the BETTER HEALTH intervention, a public health adaptation of BETTER, at improving participation in chronic disease prevention and screening actions for residents of low-income neighbourhoods in a cluster randomized trial, with ten low-income neighbourhoods in Durham Region Ontario randomized to immediate intervention vs. wait-list. The unit of analysis was the individual, and eligible participants were adults age 40–64 years residing in the neighbourhoods. Public health nurses trained as “prevention practitioners” held one prevention-focused visit with each participant. They provided participants with a tailored prevention prescription and supported them to set health-related goals. The primary outcome was a composite index: the number of evidence-based actions achieved at six months as a proportion of those for which participants were eligible at baseline. Results Of 126 participants (60 in immediate arm; 66 in wait-list arm), 125 were included in analyses (1 participant withdrew consent). In both arms, participants were eligible for a mean of 8.6 actions at baseline. At follow-up, participants in the immediate intervention arm met 64.5% of actions for which they were eligible versus 42.1% in the wait-list arm (rate ratio 1.53 [95% confidence interval 1.22–1.84]). Conclusion Public health nurses using the BETTER HEALTH intervention led to a higher proportion of identified evidence-based prevention and screening actions achieved at six months for people living with socioeconomic disadvantage. Trial registration NCT03052959, registered February 10, 2017.

scholarly journals Implementing and evaluating a program to facilitate chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: a mixed methods program evaluation

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Patricia Manca ◽  
Kris Aubrey-Bassler ◽  
Kami Kandola ◽  
Carolina Aguilar ◽  
Denise Campbell-Scherer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Program Evaluation ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Chronic Disease Prevention

Public Health Law in Chronic Disease Prevention and Management

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Wennerstrom ◽  
Sharada Shantharam ◽  
Floribella Redondo ◽  
Siobhan Gilchrist*
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Chronic Disease Prevention ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Public Health Law

scholarly journals Chronic disease prevention evaluation in Ontario’s public health system: a qualitative needs assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 111 (6) ◽  
pp. 1002-1010
Author(s):  
Andrea LaMarre ◽  
Barbara Riley ◽  
Ruchika Jain ◽  
Barbara Zupko ◽  
David Buetti
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Health System ◽  
Needs Assessment ◽  
Public Health System ◽  
Chronic Disease Prevention ◽  
System A

scholarly journals Development and evaluation of a brief self-completed family history screening tool for common chronic disease prevention in primary care

2013 ◽  
Vol 63 (611) ◽  
pp. e393-e400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona M Walter ◽  
A Toby Prevost ◽  
Linda Birt ◽  
Nicola Grehan ◽  
Kathy Restarick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Family History ◽  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Chronic Disease Prevention ◽  
Common Chronic Disease

scholarly journals Patients’ perspectives on BETTER 2 prevention and screening: qualitative findings from Newfoundland & Labrador

BJGP Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen17X101037
Author(s):  
Nicolette Sopcak ◽  
Carolina Aguilar ◽  
Candace I J Nykiforuk ◽  
Mary Ann O’Brien ◽  
Kris Aubrey-Bassler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Chronic Disease Prevention ◽  
Qualitative Description ◽  
Preventative Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
Novel Approach

BackgroundChronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) has been identified as a top priority in primary care. However, primary care providers often lack time, evidence-based tools, and consistent guidelines to effectively address CDPS. Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER) is a novel approach that introduces a new role, that of the prevention practitioner; the prevention practitioner meets with patients, one on one, to undertake a personalised CDPS visit. Understanding patients’ perspectives is important for clinicians and other stakeholders aiming to address and integrate CDPS.AimTo describe patients’ perspectives regarding visits with a prevention practitioner in BETTER 2, an implementation study that was carried out after the BETTER trial and featured a higher proportion of patients in rural and remote locations.Design & settingQualitative description based on patient feedback surveys, completed by patients in three primary care clinics (urban, rural, and remote) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.MethodPatients’ perspectives were assessed based on responses from 91 feedback forms. In total, 154 patients (aged 40–65 years) received ≥1 prevention visit(s) from a prevention practitioner and were asked to provide written feedback. In addition to demographics, patients were asked what they liked about their visit(s), what they would have liked to be different, and invited to make any other comments. Qualitative description was used to analyse the data.ResultsFour main themes emerged from patients’ feedback: value of visit (patients appreciated the visit with a prevention practitioner); visit characteristics (the visit was personalised, comprehensive, and sufficiently long); prevention practitioners' characteristics (professionalism and interpersonal skills); and patients’ concerns (termination of the programme and access to preventative care).ConclusionPatients appreciated the visits they received with a prevention practitioner and expressed their desire to receive sustained CDPS in primary care.

scholarly journals Between worst and best: developing criteria to identify promising practices in health promotion and disease prevention for the Canadian Best Practices Portal

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (11) ◽  
pp. 386-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Fazal ◽  
Suzanne F. Jackson ◽  
Katy Wong ◽  
Jennifer Yessis ◽  
Nina Jetha
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Health Agency ◽  
Chronic Disease Prevention ◽  
Promising Practices ◽  
Screening Criteria ◽  
The Public

Introduction In health promotion and chronic disease prevention, both best and promising practices can provide critical insights into what works for enhancing the healthrelated outcomes of individuals and communities, and how/why these practices work in different situations and contexts. Methods The promising practices criteria were developed using the Public Health Agency of Canada’s (PHAC’s) existing best practices criteria as the foundation. They were modified and pilot tested (three rounds) using published interventions. Theoretical and methodological issues and challenges were resolved via consultation and in-depth discussions with a working group. Results The team established a set of promising practices criteria, which differentiated from the best practices criteria via six specific measures. Conclusion While a number of complex challenges emerged in the development of these criteria, they were thoroughly discussed, debated and resolved. The Canadian Best Practices Portal’s screening criteria allow one to screen for both best and promising practices in the fields of public health, health promotion, chronic disease prevention, and potentially beyond.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document