Health Education & Behavior

The Practice Notes section is intended to keep readers informed about health education practice around the country. It is an attempt to spread the word about exemplary strategies, initiatives, and programs and share successes in overcoming obstacles or challenges. Periodically, articles presenting perspectives on practice-related issues are also included in Practice Notes.

The Urban Research Center (URC) in Harlem, New York City, is a collaboration of community members, service providers, and academics. A Community Advisory Board (CAB) meets regularly to formulate priorities for action and to direct research. A conceptual model of social determinants of health relevant to the Harlem community was developed. Early meetings of the CAB identified substance use as a health concern in the Harlem community. Access to social services was identified as a key social determinant that should guide research and intervention efforts of the URC. Surveys of service providers and of substance users were carried out to quantify availability of information and barriers to access. This article discusses the CAB process that led to the model of social determinants, development of surveys, and interpretation of results. The authors also discuss survey results and how the URC will use these results to develop interventions.

The community advisory board (CAB) of the Harlem Urban Research Center, which includes community service providers, Department of Health workers, and academics, identified substance users’health as an action priority. The CAB initiated the development of a wellness guide to provide informational support for substance users to improve access to community services. Focus groups of current and former users engaged substance users in the guide development process and determined the guide’s content and “look.” Focus group participants recommended calling this a “survival” guide. The guide will include three sections: (a) health information and how to navigate the system to obtain services, (b) a reference list of community services, and (c) relevant “hot-line” numbers. The design will incorporate local street art. Substance users continue to shape the guide through ongoing art workshops. Dissemination and evaluation of the guide will continue to involve substance users, community service providers, and academics.

The authors describe the use of a stress process model by the East Side Village Health Worker Partnership (ESVHWP), a project of the Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center, as a framework for understanding social determinants of health. Specifically, the authors describe the development by the ESVHWP Steering Committee of a context-specific stress process model for east side Detroit residents. The authors examine data from in-depth interviews to illuminate actions taken by community members to reduce stressors or minimize their impact on health. Finally, the authors describe the use of this context-specific stress process model and data gathered regarding actions to address community stressors to inform the development of interventions by the ESVHWP to reduce stressors or strengthen the conditioning factors that reduce the impact of stress on health. On the basis of these results, the authors discuss opportunities and challenges for partnership approaches to addressing social determinants of health in urban communities.

A conceptual model of the stress process has been useful in examining relationships between numerous social determinants (e.g., chronic stress), protective factors (e.g., social support), and health status. In this article, the authors examine multiple sources of chronic stress, instrumental and emotional support, and health outcomes among a random sample (N = 679) of predominantly low-income African American women who reside on Detroit’s east side. The findings suggest that a number of chronic stressors have an impact on depressive symptoms and general health and that even though instrumental and emotional support each have a significant effect over and above the effects of the stressors, when both are included in the model, instrumental support, and not emotional support, remains as a significant predictor of health outcomes. These findings suggest the need for health education interventions and policy strategies that strengthen social support and aim at macro-level changes necessary to reduce chronic stressful conditions.

Seattle Partners for Healthy Communities (SPHC) is a multidisciplinary collaboration of community agencies, community activists, public health professionals, academics, and health providers who conduct research aimed at improving the health of urban, socioeconomically marginalized Seattle communities. SPHC uses a community-based participatory research approach to address social factors that affect the health of these communities. This article describes three SPHC projects that focus on social determinants of health, particularly the development of social support and improving housing quality. The characteristics of community participation in each of these projects are discussed and show a spectrum of participation. Although projects successfully addressed proximal social factors affecting health, influencing more distal underlying factors was more difficult. Implications for researchers using a community-based participatory research approach and public health practitioners seeking to engage communities in addressing social determinants of health are presented.

Community-based organizations (CBOs), including grassroots, voluntary organizations, are an important part of any strategy for addressing social determinants of health. Because of the challenges faced by CBOs, “enabling systems” may be needed to help them survive and fulfill their missions, and researchers have a variety of skills that allow them to play a role in such systems. The potential for researchers to play a role in supporting CBOs led the Seattle Urban Research Center (known as Seattle Partners) to establish a community research center (CRC) as one of its core projects. This article describes the operation of the Seattle Partners CRC and gives examples of how it has worked collaboratively with CBOs in providing technical assistance. The Discussion section draws from the CRC experience to examine the benefits and challenges of collaboration and the trade-off between capacity building and providing direct technical assistance in promoting long-term CBO viability.