Development of tailored feedback reports on organizational capacity for health promotion in African American churches

Cheryl L Holt, Rachel C Shelton, Jennifer D Allen, Janice Bowie, Lina Jandorf, Sherie Lou Zara Santos, Jimmie Slade, Cheryl L Holt, Rachel C Shelton, Jennifer D Allen, Janice Bowie, Lina Jandorf, Sherie Lou Zara Santos, Jimmie Slade

Abstract

Standard community-engaged research methods involve reporting research findings back to study participants. Project HEAL is an implementation trial conducted in 14 African American churches. This paper reports on a strengths-based approach to reporting Project HEAL organizational capacity data back to church leadership, through use of individualized church reports. Pastors in each church completed a church organizational capacity assessment. The study team, including community partners representing church leadership, co-created a channel and content to disseminate the capacity data back to Project HEAL church leaders. This consisted of a 4-page lay report that included the church's capacity scores, and recommendations for future evidence-based health promotion programming matched to their capacity. The study team was able to meet with nine of the 14 churches to review the report, which took an average of six and a half weeks to schedule. The individualized church reports were well-received by pastors, who expressed an intention to share the information with others in the church and to sustain health promotion activities in their organizations. Though the individualized reports were embraced by the pastors, it is unknown whether this process will result in sustainable health promotion in these organizations without further follow-up.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02076958.

Keywords: African American; Capacity; Churches; Feedback; Sustainability; Tailoring.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Project HEAL intervention activities
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Tailored Church Report Example—Church A (de-identified)
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Tailored Church Report Example—Church A (de-identified)
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Tailored Church Report Example—Church A (de-identified)
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Tailored Church Report Example—Church A (de-identified)
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Tailored Church Report Example—Church B (de-identified)
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Tailored Church Report Example—Church B (de-identified)
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Tailored Church Report Example—Church B (de-identified)
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Tailored Church Report Example—Church B (de-identified)

Source: PubMed

Подписаться