A mixed methods analysis of community capacity to address health equity in the rural Southern U.S.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Michelle C Kegler, April Hermstad, Lauren Bigger, Tina Anderson Smith, Melissa G Line, Arlene Goldson, Alexis J Smith, Regine Haardörfer
{"title":"A mixed methods analysis of community capacity to address health equity in the rural Southern U.S.","authors":"Michelle C Kegler, April Hermstad, Lauren Bigger, Tina Anderson Smith, Melissa G Line, Arlene Goldson, Alexis J Smith, Regine Haardörfer","doi":"10.1186/s12939-025-02589-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multisectoral community coalitions have the potential to mobilize change toward health equity. The Two Georgias Initiative supported multisectoral community coalitions with a major goal of building community capacity to address health equity in 11 rural counties in the state of Georgia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-site, mixed methods evaluation assessed changes in community capacity over the course of the five-year initiative. Coalition member surveys at two points in time, four rounds of key informant interviews, and document review informed various dimensions of community capacity, operationalized as resident participation, leadership development, skills gained, network expansion, resource mobilization, critical reflection, and redistribution of community power.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Resident participation (i.e., coalition membership, community assessment, programmatic activities), leadership opportunities (i.e., coalition positions, collecting data, leading implementation, volunteering), skill gains (i.e., understanding health equity and root causes, having difficult conversations about race and class), and strengthened partnerships (i.e., for sharing information, coordinating services, and joint projects) were the most widespread capacity outcomes across the coalitions. Resource mobilization varied by coalition, with significant external funding leveraged by several. As an indicator of critical reflection on health equity, coalitions used quantitative data to identify gaps/inequities, conducted focus groups with members of priority populations, attempted to give everyone a voice, made concerted efforts to reach underserved, disadvantaged and other groups, and took services directly to those in need. Actions to address root causes of inequities within counties were less common as were shifts in community power toward health equity, although several notable examples were shared.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Community coalitions are an effective mechanism for strengthening selected dimensions of community capacity for health equity in rural communities. Deeper engagement of those most affected by health inequities and actions toward addressing structural and policy drivers of these inequities may require the active centering of health equity from project inception. Clarity of purpose (i.e., racial/income inequities or rural/urban inequities), technical support for community empowerment, regional networking for policy change, and longer-timeframes may also be beneficial.</p>","PeriodicalId":13745,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Equity in Health","volume":"24 1","pages":"223"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12355786/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Equity in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02589-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Multisectoral community coalitions have the potential to mobilize change toward health equity. The Two Georgias Initiative supported multisectoral community coalitions with a major goal of building community capacity to address health equity in 11 rural counties in the state of Georgia.

Methods: A cross-site, mixed methods evaluation assessed changes in community capacity over the course of the five-year initiative. Coalition member surveys at two points in time, four rounds of key informant interviews, and document review informed various dimensions of community capacity, operationalized as resident participation, leadership development, skills gained, network expansion, resource mobilization, critical reflection, and redistribution of community power.

Results: Resident participation (i.e., coalition membership, community assessment, programmatic activities), leadership opportunities (i.e., coalition positions, collecting data, leading implementation, volunteering), skill gains (i.e., understanding health equity and root causes, having difficult conversations about race and class), and strengthened partnerships (i.e., for sharing information, coordinating services, and joint projects) were the most widespread capacity outcomes across the coalitions. Resource mobilization varied by coalition, with significant external funding leveraged by several. As an indicator of critical reflection on health equity, coalitions used quantitative data to identify gaps/inequities, conducted focus groups with members of priority populations, attempted to give everyone a voice, made concerted efforts to reach underserved, disadvantaged and other groups, and took services directly to those in need. Actions to address root causes of inequities within counties were less common as were shifts in community power toward health equity, although several notable examples were shared.

Conclusions: Community coalitions are an effective mechanism for strengthening selected dimensions of community capacity for health equity in rural communities. Deeper engagement of those most affected by health inequities and actions toward addressing structural and policy drivers of these inequities may require the active centering of health equity from project inception. Clarity of purpose (i.e., racial/income inequities or rural/urban inequities), technical support for community empowerment, regional networking for policy change, and longer-timeframes may also be beneficial.

美国南部农村解决卫生公平问题的社区能力的混合方法分析
背景:多部门社区联盟具有动员变革以实现卫生公平的潜力。“两个格鲁吉亚倡议”支持多部门社区联盟,其主要目标是建设社区能力,以解决格鲁吉亚州11个农村县的卫生公平问题。方法:采用跨站点、混合方法评估五年计划期间社区能力的变化。在两个时间点对联盟成员进行调查,对关键信息提供方进行四轮访谈,并对文件进行审查,了解社区能力的各个方面,这些方面包括居民参与、领导力发展、获得的技能、网络扩展、资源动员、批判性反思和社区权力的再分配。结果:居民参与(即联盟成员、社区评估、方案活动)、领导机会(即联盟职位、收集数据、领导实施、志愿服务)、技能获得(即了解卫生公平和根本原因、就种族和阶级进行艰难的对话)以及加强伙伴关系(即共享信息、协调服务和联合项目)是各联盟中最广泛的能力成果。资源调动因联盟而异,若干联盟利用了大量外部资金。作为对卫生公平进行批判性反思的一项指标,联盟利用定量数据确定差距/不公平现象,与重点人群成员进行焦点小组讨论,试图让每个人都有发言权,作出协调一致的努力,接触服务不足、处境不利和其他群体,并直接向有需要的人提供服务。解决县内不平等的根本原因的行动不太常见,社区权力向卫生公平的转变也不太常见,尽管有几个值得注意的例子。结论:社区联盟是加强农村社区卫生公平能力的有效机制。让受卫生不平等影响最严重的人更深入地参与进来,并采取行动解决这些不平等的结构性和政策驱动因素,可能需要从项目一开始就积极关注卫生公平。明确目标(即种族/收入不平等或农村/城市不平等)、为社区赋权提供技术支持、为政策变化建立区域网络和较长的时间框架也可能是有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
162
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal for Equity in Health is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal presenting evidence relevant to the search for, and attainment of, equity in health across and within countries. International Journal for Equity in Health aims to improve the understanding of issues that influence the health of populations. This includes the discussion of political, policy-related, economic, social and health services-related influences, particularly with regard to systematic differences in distributions of one or more aspects of health in population groups defined demographically, geographically, or socially.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信