Search

Background: Community health improvement plans (CHIPs) are strategic planning tools that help local communities identify and address their public health needs. Many local health departments have developed a CHIP, yet there is a lack of research on the extent to which these plans address root causes of health disparities such as the social determinants of health. This study aims to inventory the social determinants of health included in 13 CHIPs and examine facilitators and challenges faced by local health departments and partners when trying to include the social determinants of health. Methods: We conducted a comparative plan evaluation by scoring 13 CHIPs on their inclusion of equity orientation, inclusive planning processes, and five social determinants of health: health care access and quality, the neighborhood and built environment, economic stability, social and community context, and education access and quality. To supplement the plan evaluation, we conducted 32 in-depth interviews with CHIP leaders and stakeholders to understand the factors contributing to the inclusion and exclusion of the social determinants of health in the planning process. Results: CHIPs received an average score of 49/100 for the inclusion of the social determinants of health. Most plans addressed health care access and quality and the neighborhood and built environment, but they often did not address economic stability, the social and community context, and education access and quality. Regarding their overall equity orientation, CHIPs received an average score of 35/100, reflecting a relative lack of attention to equity and inclusive planning processes in the plans. Interviews revealed that challenges engaging partners, making clear connections between CHIPs and social determinants, and a lack of capacity or public and partner support often led to the exclusion of the social determinants of health. Recommendations to improve planning processes include improving data infrastructure, providing resources for dedicated planning staff and community engagement incentives, and centering equity throughout the planning process. Conclusions: Although local health departments can leverage CHIPs to improve population health and address health disparities, they face a range of challenges to including the social determinants of health in CHIPs. Additional resourcing and improved data are needed to facilitate broader inclusion of these determinants, and more work is needed to elevate equity throughout these planning processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Organizational health equity capacity assessments (OCAs) provide a valuable starting point to understand and strengthen an organization's readiness and capacity for health equity. We conducted a scoping review to identify and characterize existing OCAs. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases and practitioner websites to identify peer-reviewed and gray literature articles and tools that measure or assess health equity–related capacity in public health organizations. Seventeen OCAs met the inclusion criteria. We organized primary OCA characteristics and implementation evidence and described them thematically according to key categories. Results: All identified OCAs assessed organizational readiness or capacity for health equity, and many aimed to guide health equity capacity development. The OCAs differed in regard to thematic focus, structure, and intended audience. Implementation evidence was limited. Conclusions: By providing a synthesis of OCAs, these findings can assist public health organizations in selecting and implementing OCAs to assess, strengthen, and monitor their internal organizational capacity for health equity. This synthesis also fills a knowledge gap for those who may be considering developing similar tools in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Urban and rural areas have different types of built environments and community infrastructure, which lead to different types of successful community-based physical activity initiatives. Temporary Play Streets are a supported way to increase physical activity and perceptions of the built environment as a space for active lifestyles. Purpose: Within the field of public health, public libraries constitute an underutilized community partner. To begin to understand the capacity of rural librarians to support rural Play Streets, a cross-sectional questionnaire was developed for distribution to rural librarians. Methods: The sampling frame targeted members of the membership-based U.S. Association for Rural & Small Libraries (ARSL). Among respondents, 65% reported offering outdoor physical activity programs in the past, and 61% reported continuing to offer versions of this programming during the COVID-19 pandemic. Librarians work with a broad range of community partners on this programming, and already own much of the equipment necessary for a successful Play Streets initiative. Conclusions: The results of this study corroborate claims from previous research, which shows that in small and rural communities, public libraries have the capacity to play a role in promoting physical activity through involvement in community partnerships. Additional work is needed to understand, evaluate, and support this opportunity to weave rural librarians into community-based physical activity promotion efforts more fully. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) can provide accurate assessment of physical activity; however, the skills, time, and human resources necessary to collect/interpret SOPARC data can be challenging for community organizations. This article describes a more accessible adaptation of SOPARC using video recordings for community organizations to obtain physical activity feedback at Play Streets. Narrated panoramic video scans occurred every 30 minutes at each Play Street using an iPad. Videographers narrated: (1) sex, (2) age group (child, teen, adult, senior), and (3) activity level (sedentary, walking, vigorous) for everyone recorded. SOPARC video scans, in-person iSOPARC observations, and interviews were conducted with Play Streets implementors to determine validity and feasibility. Validity was examined using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). In-person and video scans showed near perfect agreement for sedentary individuals (CCC =.95) and substantial agreement for active individuals (CCC =.72). Overall, community partners felt that they "could see how [the scans] could be useful" and "help[ed] see a bit more clearly what's happening." The method described here is a more accessible systematic observation approach to measure physical activity for communities implementing Play Streets. Further, this method can be used without research training while still providing valuable activity feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Play streets involve the temporary closure of streets that for a specified time create a safe place for active play. Play streets have been implemented primarily in cities; it is unknown if they could be adapted and implemented in rural areas. To learn about implementation, core components of play streets and inform adaptation, we conducted systematic peer-reviewed and grey literature searches and interviews with a purposive sample of key informants. Data were analyzed by theme and used to inform implementation of play streets by four community organizations in low-income rural areas of Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas from June to September 2017. Core elements of play streets in urban areas were present in rural settings—the content (e.g., activities offered), delivery of the intervention in partnership with community members and local organizations, and reoccurrence of play streets at a single location. There were three key adaptations relating to delivery and context to consider uniquely when implementing play streets in rural areas (1) using locations other than streets, (2) varying locations to account for geographic dispersion, and (3) maximizing participation and resources by coupling play streets with community events. Play streets can be successfully implemented in rural settings with these modifications, which support feasibility, reach, and access. Play streets in rural areas should include activities for active play that are age-appropriate and fun, without necessarily tailoring content for rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]