Municipal community centers as healthy settings: evaluation of a real-world health promotion intervention in Jerusalem

Deborah Barasche-Berdah, Sima Wetzler, Iva Greenshtein, Keren L Greenberg, Elisheva Leiter, Milka Donchin, Donna R Zwas, Deborah Barasche-Berdah, Sima Wetzler, Iva Greenshtein, Keren L Greenberg, Elisheva Leiter, Milka Donchin, Donna R Zwas

Abstract

Background: This study presents an intervention designed to foster the implementation of health promotion programs within District Municipality Community Centers (DMCCs) in Jerusalem, and the creation of a peer network of healthy settings with a shared aspiration of collaborating and implementing health-promoting policies at the community level. We also present the evaluation strategy, based on the EQUIHP and RE-AIM frameworks.

Methods: Twenty DMCCs completed our program. This evaluation research involved a comprehensive seminar during the first year for DMCCs coordinators, teaching them the principles of health promotion. An educational kit was distributed during the second year. The evaluation strategy included a process evaluation and annual evaluations based on the EQUIHP and RE-AIM frameworks. The EQUIHP tool was divided into four dimensions of evaluation: 1) Framework of health promotion principles, 2) Project development and implementation, 3) Project management, and 4) Sustainability; while the RE-AIM domains included: 1)Reach, 2)Effectiveness, 3)Adoption, 4)Implementation and 5)Maintenance.

Results: The program led to high responsiveness among DMCCs and to the implementation of diverse health promotion initiatives, with a participation of approximately 29,191 residents. The EQUIHP evaluation showed an improvement in program quality in Year 2. The final RE-AIM evaluation presented a total median score of 0.61 for all domains, where 0 was non-performance and 1.0 was full performance. The 'Framework of health promotion principles' and 'Reach' components received the highest median score (0.83, 1.0 and 0.87), while the 'Sustainability and 'Maintenance' components received the lowest (0.5).

Conclusions: This innovative program adapts the Healthy Cities approach (initiated by the World Health Organization in 1986) to the development of community center health-promoting settings within the larger municipal framework, training local community center staff members to assess and address local health concerns and build community capacity. The local focus and efforts may help community actors to create health promotion programs more likely to be adopted, feasible in the 'real-world' and able to produce public health impact in the communities where people live. Moreover, collaboration and cooperation among DMCCs may lead to a broader community health vision, forging coalitions that can advocate more powerfully for health promotion.

Trial registration: NIH trial registration number: NCT04470960. Retrospectively registered on: 14/07/2020.

Keywords: Community centers; EQUIHP; Evaluation strategy; Health promotion; Healthy communities; RE-AIM framework; Settings.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Program Timeline and description of the preparation phase, first- and second-year activities
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Results from EQUIHP evaluation of health initiatives in years 1 and 2. b Spider chart comparison of the 2 years EQUIHP evaluation. Legend: Median scores per domain and distribution [0–1 range]
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Results from RE-AIM evaluation of DMCCs at the end of year 2. Legend: Median scores per domain and distribution [0–1 range]

References

    1. WHO. Ottawa charter for health promotion. 1986. . Accessed 10 Jun 2022.
    1. Tsouros AD. World Health Organization Healthy Cities project : a project becomes a movement : review of progress 1987 to 1990. 1991.
    1. Besor O, Manor O, Paltiel O, Donchin M, Rauch O, Kaufman-Shriqui V, et al. A city-wide health promotion programme evaluation using EQUIHP: Jerusalem Community-Academic Partnership (J-CAP) Eur J Public Health. 2020;30:427–432. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz154.
    1. Jerusalem municipality- the official website. . Accessed 10 Jun 2022.
    1. IACC Israel Association of Community Centers. . Accessed 6 Jun 2022.
    1. Bollars C, Kok H, Van den Broucke, S Molleman G. User Manual. Woerden: European Quality Instrument for Health Promotion (EQUIHP); 2005. . Accessed 28 Sept 2022.
    1. Re-Aim Planning Tool. . Accessed 10 Jun 2022.
    1. European Quality Instrument for Health Promotion (EQUIHP). . Accessed 10 Jun 2022.
    1. Glasgow R, Vogt T, Boles S. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1322–1327. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
    1. Galaviz KI, Harden SM, Smith E, Blackman KCA, Berrey LM, Mama SK, et al. Physical activity promotion in Latin American populations: a systematic review on issues of internal and external validity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:77. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-77.
    1. Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: Adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. 2019;7:64. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064.
    1. Dawson Beth; Trapp RG. Basic & Clinical Biostatistics. 4th ed. New York: Lange Medical Books-McGraw-Hill, Medical Pub. Division, c2004; 2004.
    1. Cerdá-gómez R, Paredes-carbonell JJ, López-sánchez MP. Aplicabilidad y percepción de utilidad del European Quality Instrument for Health Promotion ( EQUIHP ) en un programa de promoción de la salud. Gac Sanit. 2018;32:135–42. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.01.007.
    1. Welch A, Healy G, Straker L, Comans T, O’Leary S, Melloh M, et al. Process evaluation of a workplace-based health promotion and exercise cluster-randomised trial to increase productivity and reduce neck pain in office workers: A RE-AIM approach. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-8208-9.
    1. Greenberg KL, Donchin M, Leiter E, Zwas DR. Health ambassadors in the workplace: a health promotion intervention mobilizing middle managers and RE-AIM evaluation of outcomes. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1585. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11609-8.
    1. Tountas Y, Dimitrakaki C, Bollars C, Van Den Broucke S, Kok H, Molleman G. Evaluating quality in health promotion: the EQUIHP. Arch Hell Med. 2007;24:79–88.
    1. Brace AM, Padilla HM, DeJoy DM, Wilson MG, Vandenberg RJ, Davis M. Applying RE-AIM to the Evaluation of FUEL your life: a worksite translation of DPP. Health Promot Pract. 2015;16(1):28–35. doi: 10.1177/1524839914539329.
    1. Estabrook B, Zapka J, Lemon SC. Evaluating the implementation of a hospital work-site obesity prevention intervention: Applying the re-aim framework. Health Promot Pract. 2012;13(2):190–7. doi: 10.1177/1524839910385897.
    1. Hicking-Woodison L. Planning health promotion programs. Emerg Nurse. 2017.
    1. Public Health Ontario. At A Glance: The six steps for planning a health promotion program. . Accessed 28 Sept 2022.
    1. King L, Gill T, Allender S, Swinburn B. Best practice principles for community-based obesity prevention: development, content and application. Obes Rev. 2011;12(5):329–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00798.x.
    1. Flynn MAT, McNeil DA, Maloff B, Mutasingwa D, Wu M, Ford C, et al. Reducing obesity and related chronic disease risk in children and youth: a synthesis of evidence with “best practice” recommendations. Obesity Reviews. 2006;7:7. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00242.x.
    1. Fawcett SB, Paine-Andrews A, Francisco VT, Schultz J, Richter KP, Berkley-Patton J, et al. Evaluating community initiatives for health and development. WHO Reg Publ Eur Ser. 2001;92:241–70.
    1. Edwards RW, Jumper-Thurman P, Plested BA, Oetting ER, Swanson L. Community readiness: research to practice. J Community Psychol. 2000;28:291–307. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(200005)28:3<291::AID-JCOP5>;2-9.
    1. Chalmers ML, Housemann RA, Wiggs I, Newcomb-Hagood L, Malone B, Brownson RC. Process evaluation of a monitoring log system for community coalition activities: five-year results and lessons learned. Am J Heal Promot. 2003;17:190–196. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-17.3.190.
    1. Walkinshaw LP, Mason C, Allen CL, Vu T, Nandi P, Santiago PM, et al. Process evaluation of a regional public health model to reduce chronic disease through policy and systems changes, Washington State, 2010–2014. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:140446. doi: 10.5888/pcd12.140446.
    1. Savaya R, Spiro S, Elran-Barak R. Sustainability of Social Programs. Am J Eval. 2008;29:478–93. doi: 10.1177/1098214008325126.
    1. Swerissen H, Crisp BR. The sustainability of health promotion interventions for different levels of social organization. Health Promot Int. 2004;19:123. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dah113.
    1. Kim DH. Emergency preparedness and the development of health care coalitions: a dynamic process. Nurs Clin North Am. 2016;51:545. doi: 10.1016/j.cnur.2016.07.013.
    1. Cormier S, Wargo M, Winslow W. Transforming health care coalitions from hospitals to whole of community: Lessons learned from two large health care organizations. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(6):712–6. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2015.146.
    1. Khare MM, Núñez AE, James BF. Coalition for a Healthier Community: Lessons learned and implications for future work. Eval Program Plann. 2015;51:85–8. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.01.001.
    1. Lengerich EJ, Kluhsman BC, Bencivenga M, Allen R, Miele MB, Farace E. Development of community plans to enhance survivorship from colorectal cancer: community-based participatory research in rural communities. J Cancer Surviv. 2007;1(3):205–11. doi: 10.1007/s11764-007-0025-y.
    1. Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Heal. 2019;7:64. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064.
    1. Steckler A, Goodman R, Kegler M. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. 3rd. 2002. Mobilizing organizations for health enhancement; pp. 335–60.
    1. Feyissa GT, Balabanova D, Woldie M. How effective are mentoring programs for improving health worker competence and institutional performance in africa? A systematic review of quantitative evidence. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019;12:989–1005. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S228951.
    1. Ramos IN, May M, Ramos KS. Environmental health training of promotoras in colonias along the Texas-Mexico border. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:568. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.4.568.
    1. Gray P, Senabe S, Naicker N, Kgalamono S, Yassi A, Spiegel JM. Workplace-based organizational interventions promoting mental health and happiness among healthcare workers: a realist review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:4396. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16224396.
    1. Ackermann RT, Marrero DG. Adapting the diabetes prevention program lifestyle intervention for delivery in the community: the YMCA model. Diabetes Educ. 2007;33:69–78. doi: 10.1177/0145721706297743.
    1. Faro JM, Arem H, Heston A-H, Hohman KH, Hodge H, Wang B, et al. A longitudinal implementation evaluation of a physical activity program for cancer survivors: LIVESTRONG® at the YMCA. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1:63. doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00051-3.
    1. Belza B, Petrescu-Prahova M, Kohn M, Miyawaki CE, Farren L, Kline G, et al. Adoption of evidence-based health promotion programs: perspectives of early adopters of Enhance®Fitness in YMCA-affiliated sites. Front Public Heal. 2015;2:164.
    1. Arcaya M, Reardon T, Vogel J, Andrews BK, Li W, Land T. Tailoring community-based wellness initiatives with latent class analysis-massachusetts community transformation grant projects. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:130215. doi: 10.5888/pcd11.130215.
    1. Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. . Accessed 10 Jun 2022.
    1. Yang CL, Bird ML, Eng JJ. Implementation and evaluation of the Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Program (GRASP) for people with stroke in a real world community setting: Case report. Phys Ther. 2021;101:pzab008. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab008.
    1. King AC, Campero MI, Sheats JL, Castro Sweet CM, Hauser ME, Garcia D, et al. Effects of counseling by peer human advisors vs computers to increase walking in underserved populations: the COMPASS randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:1481–1490. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4143.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera