Article

Using the Community Readiness Model to Select Communities for a Community-Wide Obesity Prevention Intervention

Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, 150 Harrison Ave, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Preventing chronic disease (Impact Factor: 1.96). 11/2011; 8(6):A150.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To build on a growing interest in community-based obesity prevention programs, methods are needed for matching intervention strategies to local needs and assets. We used the Community Readiness Model (CRM), a structured interview guide and scoring system, to assess community readiness to act on childhood obesity prevention, furthering a replication study of a successful intervention.
Using the CRM protocol, we conducted interviews with 4 stakeholders in each of 10 communities of similar size, socioeconomic status, and perceived readiness to implement a community-wide obesity prevention intervention. Communities were in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The 4 stakeholders were the mayor or city manager, the school superintendent, the school food service director, and a community coalition representative. Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Pairs of trained reviewers scored the transcriptions according to CRM protocol. The CRM assesses 9 stages of readiness for 6 dimensions: existing community efforts to prevent childhood obesity, community knowledge about the efforts, leadership, community climate, knowledge about the issue, and resources. We calculated an overall readiness score for each community from the dimension scores.
Overall readiness scores ranged from 2.97 to 5.36 on the 9-point scale. The mean readiness score, 4.28 (SD, 0.68), corresponds with a "preplanning" level of readiness. Of the 6 dimensions, community climate varied the least (mean score, 3.11; SD, 0.64); leadership varied the most (mean score, 4.79; SD, 1.13).
The CRM quantified a subjective concept, allowing for comparison among 10 communities. Dimension scores and qualitative data from interviews helped in the selection of 6 communities for a replication study.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Alison Tovar, Jun 30, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
151 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A safe supply of drinking water is a cornerstone of public health and community well-being. Complacency among those responsible for the provision of safe drinking water (e. g., water suppliers, operators, and managers) has led to numerous and otherwise avoidable waterborne outbreaks. Water safety plans present a risk-based, proactive framework for water management, and when properly implemented, virtually eliminates the option for complacency. However, the uptake of water safety plans remain limited worldwide. This paper reports on the experiences of early water safety plan adopters and identifies a number of non-technical operational and human factors that have undermined previous efforts. Specifically, it identifies these factors as a gap in the water safety plan implementation literature and suggests incorporating the broader community in water safety planning through a community readiness approach. Assessing and building community readiness for water safety plans is suggested to be a critical pre-implementation step, and a potential tool for use by water suppliers and by policy makers.
    Environmental Reviews 07/2014; 23(1):1-6. DOI:10.1139/er-2014-0030 · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Community capacity building is a promising approach to reducing childhood obesity. The objective was to determine changes in capacity over a 3year intervention (2005-2008) in schools and whether greater increases in capacity were associated with greater decreases in overweight/obesity. METHODS: "It's your Move!" (IYM) was an obesity prevention project, in 12 Australian secondary schools (5 intervention; 7 comparison), that aimed to increase community capacity to promote healthy eating and physical activity. Capacity was assessed pre/post intervention using the 'Community Readiness to Change (RTC)' tool. Comparisons from baseline to follow-up were tested using Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks and results plotted against changes (Newcombe's paired differences) in prevalence of overweight/obesity (WHO standards). RESULTS: RTC increased in intervention schools (p=0.04) over time but not for comparison schools (p=0.50). The intervention group improved on 5 of 6 dimensions and the three intervention schools that increased three levels on the RTC scale each had significant reductions in overweight/obesity prevalence. CONCLUSION: There were marked increases in capacity in the intervention schools and those with greater increases had greater decreases in the prevalence of overweight/obesity. Community-based obesity prevention efforts should specifically target increasing community capacity as a proximal indicator of success.
    Preventive Medicine 02/2013; 56(6). DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.02.020 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Community-based interventions to promote healthy weights by making environmental and policy changes in communities may be an important strategy in reversing the obesity epidemic. However, challenges faced by local public health professionals in facilitating effective environmental and policy change need to be better understood and addressed. To better understand capacity-building needs, this study evaluated the efforts of the Healthy Start Partnership, a university-community project to promote healthy weights in young families in a rural eight-county area of upstate New York. Qualitative interviews (n=30) and pre/post surveys (n=31) were conducted over three years of the intervention. Challenges faced by partners significantly slowed progress of environmental interventions in some communities. First, many partners did not feel their "regular" jobs afforded them sufficient time to do community work. Second, many partners did not feel they had the personal political power to work on broader environmental, policy, or system change issues. Third, facilitating and policy change and reaching out to non-traditional partners, like businesses, required developing a new set of public health skills. Fourth, the long-time frame of environmental and policy work meant that many efforts would exceed the grant period. Building local public health leaders for environmental and policy change necessitates that these challenges are acknowledged and addressed.
    Evaluation and program planning 01/2012; 35(3):407-16. DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.01.002 · 0.89 Impact Factor