Community Member and Stakeholder Perspectives on a Healthy Environment Initiative in North Carolina.

INTRODUCTION: The North Carolina Community Transformation Grant Project (NC-CTG) aimed to implement policy, system, and environmental strategies to promote healthy eating, active living, tobacco-free living, and clinical and community preventive services to advance health equity and reduce health disparities for the state's most vulnerable communities. This article presents findings from the Health Equity Collaborative Evaluation and Implementation Project, which assessed community and stakeholder perceptions of health equity for 3 NC-CTG strategies: farmers markets, shared use, and smoke-free multiunit housing. METHODS: In a triangulated qualitative evaluation, 6 photo elicitation (PE) sessions among 45 community members in 1 urban and 3 rural counties and key informant interviews among 22 stakeholders were conducted. Nine participants from the PE sessions and key informant interviews in the urban county subsequently participated in a stakeholder power analysis and mapping session (SPA) to discuss and identify people and organizations in their community perceived to be influential in addressing health equity-related issues. RESULTS: Evaluations of the PE sessions and key informant interviews indicated that access (convenience, cost, safety, and awareness of products and services) and community fit (community-defined quality, safety, values, and norms) were important constructs across the strategies. The SPA identified specific community- and faith-based organizations, health care organizations, and local government agencies as key stakeholders for future efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Both community fit and access are essential constructs for promoting health equity. Findings demonstrate the feasibility of and need for formative research that engages community members and local stakeholders to shape context-specific, culturally relevant health promotion strategies.

"Because We All Trust and Care about Each Other": Exploring Tensions Translating a Theater-based HIV Prevention Intervention into a New Context.

BACKGROUND: A theater-based human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention intervention developed in urban California was piloted with a new partnership in North Carolina. OBJECTIVES: This work describes the experience of translating a complex program with an enhanced partnership approach, barriers and facilitators of implementation in the new setting, and the challenges and benefits of interdisciplinary, collaborative interventions. METHODS: We gathered perspectives of local stakeholders involved in program implementation through process evaluation interviews and focus groups with undergraduates, a college instructor, school district administrators, and high school teachers. RESULTS: Implementing the intervention in a new setting proved feasible and successful; however, misunderstandings arose among stakeholder groups regarding teaching priorities, philosophies, and values, and were a limiting factor in partnership functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a cross-disciplinary intervention in a new setting is best achieved through a local community-engaged process, with active involvement of relevant stakeholders. We suggest strategies to strengthen community partnerships cooperating in implementation of complex, context-tailored interventions.

Community-Guided Focus Group Analysis to Examine Cancer Disparities.

BACKGROUND: Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism™ and Equity (ACCURE) is a systems-change intervention addressing disparities in treatment initiation and completion and outcomes for early stage Black and White breast and lung cancer patients. Using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach, ACCURE is guided by a diverse partnership involving academic researchers, a nonprofit community-based organization, its affiliated broader based community coalition, and providers and staff from two cancer centers. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the collaborative process our partnership used to conduct focus groups and to code and analyze the data to inform two components of the ACCURE intervention: 1) a "power analysis" of the cancer care system and 2) the development of the intervention's training component, Healthcare Equity Education and Training (HEET), for cancer center providers and staff. METHODS: Using active involvement of community and academic partners at every stage in the process, we engaged Black and White breast and lung cancer survivors at two partner cancer centers in eight focus group discussions organized by race and cancer type. Participants were asked to describe "pressure point encounters" or critical incidents during their journey through the cancer system that facilitated or hindered their willingness to continue treatment. Community and academic members collaborated to plan and develop materials, conduct focus groups, and code and analyze data. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative qualitative data analysis process strengthened the capacity of our community-medical-academic partnership, enriched our research moving forward, and enhanced the transparency and accountability of our research approach.