Dataset Information

Use of the community assessment for public health emergency response to conduct community health assessments for public health accreditation.

ABSTRACT: A community health assessment (CHA) is a collaborative process of collecting and analyzing data to learn about the health status of a community. Community health assessments are also a requirement of public health accreditation for state and local health departments and of the Affordable Care Act for nonprofit hospitals. One element of a CHA is primary data collection. This article describes the use of the Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) method for primary data collection to meet public health accreditation requirements in 2 case study communities--Nashua, New Hampshire, and Davidson County, North Carolina; CASPER is a flexible and efficient method for the collection of population-based primary data in an urban or rural setting.

SUBMITTER: Conley AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11234519 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep-Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of the community assessment for public health emergency response to conduct community health assessments for public health accreditation.

Conley Ashley M AM Vagi Sara S Horney Jennifer A JA

Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP 20140901 5

A community health assessment (CHA) is a collaborative process of collecting and analyzing data to learn about the health status of a community. Community health assessments are also a requirement of public health accreditation for state and local health departments and of the Affordable Care Act for nonprofit hospitals. One element of a CHA is primary data collection. This article describes the use of the Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) method for primary data ...[more]

PMID: 24036960

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This paper describes a participatory methodology that supports investigation of the synergistic collaboration between communities affected by infectious disease outbreak events and relevant official institutions. The core principle underlying the methodology is the recognition that synergistic relationships, characterised by mutual trust and respect, between affected communities and official institutions provide the most effective means of addressing outbreak situations. METHODS:The methodological approach and lessons learned were derived from four qualitative case studies including (i) two tick-borne disease events (Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever in Spain, 2016, and tick-borne encephalitis in the Netherlands, 2016); and (ii) two outbreaks of acute gastroenteritis (norovirus in Iceland, 2017, and verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli [VTEC] in Ireland, 2018). An after-event qualitative case study approach was taken using mixed methods. The studies were conducted in collaboration with the respective national public health authorities in the affected countries by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The analysis focused on the specific actions undertaken by the participating countries' public health and other authorities in relation to community engagement, as well as the view from the perspective of affected communities. RESULTS:Lessons highlight the critical importance of collaborating with ECDC National Focal Points during preparation and planning and with anthropological experts. Field work for each case study was conducted over one working week, which although limiting the number of individuals and institutions involved, still allowed for rich data collection due to the close collaboration with local authorities. The methodology enabled efficient extraction of synergies between authorities and communities. Implementing the methodology required a reflexivity among fieldworkers that ackowledges that different versions of reality can co-exist in the social domain. The method allowed for potential generalisability across studies. Issues of extra attention included insider-outsider perspectives, politically sensitivity of findings, and how to deal with ethical and language issues. CONCLUSIONS:The overall objective of the assessment is to identify synergies between institutional decision-making bodies and community actors and networks before, during and after an outbreak response to a given public health emergency. The methodology is generic and could be applied to a range of public health emergencies, zoonotic or otherwise.

Project description:The ability of the public to remain psychologically resilient in the face of public health emergencies and disasters (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) is a key factor in the effectiveness of a national response to such events. Community resilience and social capital are often perceived as beneficial and ensuring that a community is socially and psychologically resilient may aid emergency response and recovery. This review presents a synthesis of literature which answers the following research questions: How are community resilience and social capital quantified in research?; What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?A scoping review procedure was followed. Searches were run across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE, with search terms covering both community resilience and social capital, public health emergencies, and mental health. 26 papers met the inclusion criteria.The majority of retained papers originated in the USA, used a survey methodology to collect data, and involved a natural disaster. There was no common method for measuring community resilience or social capital. The association between community resilience and social capital with mental health was regarded as positive in most cases. However, we found that community resilience, and social capital, were initially negatively impacted by public health emergencies and enhanced by social group activities.Several key recommendations are proposed based on the outcomes from the review, which include: the need for a standardised and validated approach to measuring both community resilience and social capital; that there should be enhanced effort to improve preparedness to public health emergencies in communities by gauging current levels of community resilience and social capital; that community resilience and social capital should be bolstered if areas are at risk of disasters or public health emergencies; the need to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to communities with high resilience in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster; the importance of conducting robust evaluation of community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:ContextDisaster citizen is the use of scientific methods by the public to address preparedness, response, or recovery needs. Disaster citizen science applications with public health relevance are growing in academic and community sectors, but integration with public health emergency preparedness, response, and recovery (PHEPRR) agencies is limited.ObjectiveWe examined how local health departments (LHDs) and community-based organizations have used citizen science to build public health preparedness and response (PHEP) capabilities. The purpose of this study is to help LHDs make use of citizen science to support PHEPRR.DesignWe conducted semistructured telephone interviews (n = 55) with LHD, academic, and community representatives engaged or interested in citizen science. We used inductive and deductive methods to code and analyze interview transcripts.SettingUS and international community-based organizations and US LHDs.ParticipantsParticipants included 18 LHD representatives reflecting diversity in geographic regions and population sizes served and 31 disaster citizen science project leaders and 6 citizen science thought leaders.Main outcomesWe identified challenges LHDs and academic and community partners face in using citizen science for PHEPRR as well as strategies to facilitate implementation.ResultsAcademic and community-led disaster citizen science activities aligned with many PHEP capabilities including community preparedness, community recovery, public health surveillance and epidemiological investigation, and volunteer management. All participant groups discussed challenges related to resources, volunteer management, collaborations, research quality, and institutional acceptance of citizen science. The LHD representatives noted unique barriers due to legal and regulatory constraints and their role in using citizen science data to inform public health decisions. Strategies to increase institutional acceptance included enhancing policy support for citizen science, increasing volunteer management support, developing best practices for research quality, strengthening collaborations, and adopting lessons learned from relevant PHEPRR activities.ConclusionsThere are challenges to overcome in building PHEPRR capacity for disaster citizen science but also opportunities for LHDs to leverage the growing body of work, knowledge, and resources in academic and community sectors.

Dataset Information

Use of the community assessment for public health emergency response to conduct community health assessments for public health accreditation.

Publications

Use of the community assessment for public health emergency response to conduct community health assessments for public health accreditation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets