Examination of community-level interventions addressing early childhood obesity in Los Angeles County.

Objective: To help inform decisions regarding the equitable implementation of obesity interventions, we examined whether interventions were equitably reaching the most vulnerable communities, identified communities that received fewer interventions than expected, and estimated the effect of 'dose' of interventions on obesity prevalence. Methods: We created a database to identify and characterize obesity-related interventions implemented in Los Angeles County from 2005 to 2015 linked to community-level sociodemographic and obesity prevalence data. We ran generalized linear models with a Gamma distribution and log link to determine if interventions were directed toward vulnerable communities and to identify communities that received fewer interventions than expected. We ran fixed-effects models to estimate the association between obesity prevalence and intervention strategy count among preschool-aged children enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women Infants and Children. Results: We found that interventions targeted vulnerable communities with high poverty rates and percentages of minority residents. The small cluster of communities that received fewer interventions than expected tended to have poor socioeconomic profiles. Communities which received more intervention strategies saw greater declines in obesity prevalence (ß = -0.023; 95 % CI: -0.031, -0.016). Conclusions: It is important to determine if interventions are equitably reaching vulnerable populations as resources to tackle childhood obesity become available. Evaluating the population impact of multiple interventions implemented simultaneously presents methodological challenges in measuring intervention dose and identifying cost-effective strategies. Addressing these challenges must be an important research priority as community-wide interventions involve multiple intervention strategies to reduce health disparities.

Resident Experiences With a Place-Based Collaboration to Address Health and Social Inequities: A Survey of Visitors to the East Harlem Neighborhood Health Action Center.

In 2016 and 2017, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene established Neighborhood Health Action Centers (Action Centers) in disinvested communities of color as part of a place-based model to advance health equity. This model includes co-located partners, a referral and linkage system, and community space and programming. In 2018, we surveyed visitors to the East Harlem Action Center to provide a more comprehensive understanding of visitors' experiences. The survey was administered in English, Spanish, and Mandarin. Respondents were racially diverse and predominantly residents of East Harlem. The majority had been to the East Harlem Action Center previously. Most agreed that the main service provider for their visit made them feel comfortable, treated them with respect, spoke in a way that was easy to understand, and that they received the highest quality of service. A little more than half of returning visitors reported engaging with more than one Action Center program in the last 6 months. Twenty-one percent of respondents reported receiving at least one referral at the Action Center. Two thirds were aware that the Action Center offered a number of programs and services and half were aware that referrals were available. Additional visits to the Action Center were associated with increased likelihood of engaging with more than one program and awareness of the availability of programs and referral services. Findings suggest that most visitors surveyed had positive experiences, and more can be done to promote the Action Center and the variety of services it offers.

Building a Culture of Health at the Neighborhood Level Through Governance Councils.

To explore facilitators and barriers to developing and sustaining collaboration among New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's Neighborhood Health Action Centers and co-located partners, who share information and decision-making through a Governance Council structure of representative members. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2018 with 43 Governance Council members across the three Action Centers of East Harlem (13), Tremont (15), and Brownsville (15), New York City. Governance Council members identified collaboration through information- and resource-sharing, consistent meetings and continuous communication as valuable for fostering a culture of health in their communities. Immediate benefits included building relationships, increased access to resources, and increased reach and access to community members. Challenges included difficulty building community trust, insufficient advertisement of services, and navigation of government bureaucracy. The Governance Councils forged collaborative relationships among local government, community-based organizations and clinical providers to improve health and well-being in their neighborhoods. Sharing space, resources and information is feasible with a movement towards shared leadership and decision-making. This may result in community-driven and tailored solutions to historical inequities. In shared leadership models, some internal reform by Government partners may be required.

The Neighborhood as a Unit of Change for Health: Early Findings from the East Harlem Neighborhood Health Action Center.

Place-based approaches have been promoted as one way to reduce health inequities by addressing community-level factors that shape health, such as housing quality, healthcare systems, the built environment, and social capital. In 2016-2017, the NYC Health Department's Center for Health Equity launched three Neighborhood Health Action Centers (Action Centers), which use a place-based approach to improve health in neighborhoods with disproportionate burdens of premature mortality. We describe this approach and the genesis of the Action Centers. We then describe the East Harlem Action Center, which was the first to open, and share findings from qualitative interviews with the East Harlem Action Center's Governance Council, a group comprised of Action Center staff and co-located partners and programs which supports Action Center coordination. Interviewees felt that collaboration, being responsive to community needs, and being community based were essential elements of the Action Center. Interviewees recognized the complex dynamic of a large city agency serving as the host for the Action Center while simultaneously aiming to establish more equitable relationships with partners. Governance Council members' expectations and hopes for the East Harlem Action Center were consistent with the overall vision and model for the Action Centers, which may facilitate implementation.

Designing Place-Based Interventions for Sustainability and Replicability: The Case of GO! Austin/VAMOS! Austin.

Place-based health efforts account for the role of the community environment in shaping decisions and circumstances that affect population well-being. Such efforts, rooted as they are in the theory that health is socially determined, mobilize resources for health promotion that are not typically used, and offer a more informed and robust way of promoting health outcomes within a community. Common criticisms of place-based work include the difficulty of replication, since engagement is so specific to a place, and limited sustainability of the work, in the absence of continued institutional structures, both within the community and supporting structures outside the community, to keep these initiatives resilient. This paper describes a place-based initiative, GO! Austin/VAMOS! Austin (GAVA), which was designed to harness the strengths of place-based work-namely, its specificity to place and community. From the start, the project was designed to balance this specificity with a focus on developing and utilizing a standardized set of evidence-informed implementation and evaluation approaches and tools that were flexible enough to be modified for specific settings. This was accompanied by an emphasis on leadership and capacity building within resident leaders, which provided for informed intervention and demand building capacity, but also for longevity as partners, philanthropic, and otherwise, moved in and out of the work.

Power, Politics, and Health: A New Public Health Practice Targeting the Root Causes of Health Equity.

Purpose Understanding the WHY, WHAT, and HOW of place-based work in maternal and child health (MCH) is critical to examining the components of the environment that shape health opportunity through the relationship between life expectancy and neighborhood residence. Description On September 18, 2014, during the CityMatCH Leadership and MCH Epidemiology Conference, Dr. Anthony Iton provided the Keynote Address focused on the root causes of health inequities. Assessment The address focused on issues of equity in California and initiatives designed to mitigate and prevent disparities, including the Bay Area Regional Health Equities Initiative framework. Dr. Iton presented information on how the framework translated into investment strategies and a policy and systems change approach to place-based work. Conclusion The field of MCH, because of its focus on supporting health during critical periods of development, is poised to play a significant role in reducing health inequities. Recognizing that human health suffers when low income communities are passive, disenfranchised and disorganized, in order to change this status quo, understanding that human capital is the greatest asset is the urgent challenge to the field of MCH.

Nature-Based Strategies for Improving Urban Health and Safety.

Place-based programs are being noticed as key opportunities to prevent disease and promote public health and safety for populations at-large. As one key type of place-based intervention, nature-based and green space strategies can play an especially large role in improving health and safety for dwellers in urban environments such as US legacy cities that lack nature and greenery. In this paper, we describe the current understanding of place-based influences on public health and safety. We focus on nonchemical environmental factors, many of which are related to urban abandonment and blight. We then review findings from studies of nature-based interventions regarding impacts on health, perceptions of safety, and crime. Based on our findings, we suggest that further research in this area will require (1) refined measures of green space, nature, and health and safety for cities, (2) interdisciplinary science and cross-sector policy collaboration, (3) observational studies as well as randomized controlled experiments and natural experiments using appropriate spatial counterfactuals and mixed methods, and (4) return-on-investment calculations of potential economic, social, and health costs and benefits of urban greening initiatives.