An action research partnership in an urban Texas county to explore barriers and opportunities for collaborative community health needs assessments.

community benefit community health needs assessment decision-making nonprofit hospitals participatory action research political conservatism

Journal

Frontiers in public health
ISSN: 2296-2565
Titre abrégé: Front Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101616579

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 21 06 2023
accepted: 19 09 2023
medline: 31 10 2023
pubmed: 30 10 2023
entrez: 30 10 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The Affordable Care Act mandated triennial community health needs assessments (CHNAs) for greater nonprofit hospital accountability in responding to community health needs. Over 10 years later, hospital spending on community benefits remains largely unchanged. While greater collaboration in CHNA implementation can increase hospital investment in community-based initiatives, nonprofit hospitals in conservative states are subject to policy, political, and economic factors that inhibit public health partnerships and magnify existing disparities in health care access. This participatory action research study explores the decision-making environment of collaborative CHNA implementation within a group of nonprofit hospitals in a north Texas urban county. In 2017 faculty from an urban anchor institution initiated an academic-community partnership with a coalition of nonprofit hospitals, public health departments, and academic institutions. An interdisciplinary research team engaged in multi-method document review and qualitative data collection to describe historical barriers for local CHNA processes and develop practical strategies for joint CHNA initiatives. Local CHNA documents were first reviewed through team-based content analysis and results applied to develop a qualitative study protocol. Key informants were recruited from county-based nonprofit hospitals, community-based nonprofit organizations, and public health systems. Seventeen senior- and mid-level professionals participated in semi-structured research interviews to describe their perspectives relating to CHNA-related planning and implementation decisions. Through iterative data collection and analysis, the research team explored CHNA-related knowledge, experiences, and processes. A constructivist lens was subsequently applied to examine historical barriers and future opportunities for local collaboration. Findings reveal CHNA implementation is a multi-stage cyclical process in organizational environments with accountability to a wide range of public and private stakeholders. This promotes varied levels of inclusivity and conservatism in data collection and community benefit implementation. Decisions to collaborate are hindered by competing priorities, including compliance with existing guidelines, administrative simplicity, alignment with health care service delivery, and efficient resource use. Efforts to promote greater CHNA collaboration may be facilitated through intentional alignment with organizational priorities and clearly communicated benefits of participation for leaders in both public and private nonprofit health systems. We consider implications for policymakers and health systems in restrictive political environments and advance a conceptual framework for greater CHNA collaboration.

Sections du résumé

Background
The Affordable Care Act mandated triennial community health needs assessments (CHNAs) for greater nonprofit hospital accountability in responding to community health needs. Over 10 years later, hospital spending on community benefits remains largely unchanged. While greater collaboration in CHNA implementation can increase hospital investment in community-based initiatives, nonprofit hospitals in conservative states are subject to policy, political, and economic factors that inhibit public health partnerships and magnify existing disparities in health care access. This participatory action research study explores the decision-making environment of collaborative CHNA implementation within a group of nonprofit hospitals in a north Texas urban county.
Methods
In 2017 faculty from an urban anchor institution initiated an academic-community partnership with a coalition of nonprofit hospitals, public health departments, and academic institutions. An interdisciplinary research team engaged in multi-method document review and qualitative data collection to describe historical barriers for local CHNA processes and develop practical strategies for joint CHNA initiatives. Local CHNA documents were first reviewed through team-based content analysis and results applied to develop a qualitative study protocol. Key informants were recruited from county-based nonprofit hospitals, community-based nonprofit organizations, and public health systems. Seventeen senior- and mid-level professionals participated in semi-structured research interviews to describe their perspectives relating to CHNA-related planning and implementation decisions. Through iterative data collection and analysis, the research team explored CHNA-related knowledge, experiences, and processes. A constructivist lens was subsequently applied to examine historical barriers and future opportunities for local collaboration.
Results
Findings reveal CHNA implementation is a multi-stage cyclical process in organizational environments with accountability to a wide range of public and private stakeholders. This promotes varied levels of inclusivity and conservatism in data collection and community benefit implementation. Decisions to collaborate are hindered by competing priorities, including compliance with existing guidelines, administrative simplicity, alignment with health care service delivery, and efficient resource use. Efforts to promote greater CHNA collaboration may be facilitated through intentional alignment with organizational priorities and clearly communicated benefits of participation for leaders in both public and private nonprofit health systems.
Discussion
We consider implications for policymakers and health systems in restrictive political environments and advance a conceptual framework for greater CHNA collaboration.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37900035
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1244143
pmc: PMC10613110
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1244143

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Nava, English, Fulmer and Sanchez.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

J Public Health Manag Pract. 2017 Jul/Aug;23 Suppl 4 Suppl, Community Health Status Assessment:S29-S33
pubmed: 28542061
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018 Mar/Apr;24(2):102-111
pubmed: 28885319
Health Aff (Millwood). 2023 Jun;42(6):832-840
pubmed: 37196207
Health Care Manage Rev. 2022 Jul-Sep 01;47(3):254-262
pubmed: 34456274
Popul Health Manag. 2020 Dec;23(6):407-413
pubmed: 31808734
NAM Perspect. 2022 Feb 14;2022:
pubmed: 35891775
Public Health Rep. 2018 Jan/Feb;133(1):75-84
pubmed: 29227753
Popul Health Manag. 2020 Apr;23(2):194-200
pubmed: 31305233
Health Promot Pract. 2013 Nov;14(6):868-75
pubmed: 23271715
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Aug 2;4(8):e2122237
pubmed: 34427683
Health Soc Care Community. 2022 May;30(3):809-835
pubmed: 34363264
Am J Public Health. 2019 Jan;109(S1):S86-S93
pubmed: 30699029
Med Care Res Rev. 2023 Jun;80(3):333-341
pubmed: 36121004
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 29;373(18):1687-90
pubmed: 26510018
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2022 Jan-Feb 01;28(1):E219-E225
pubmed: 33208721
N Engl J Med. 2013 Apr 18;368(16):1519-27
pubmed: 23594004
Am J Public Health. 2018 May;108(5):595-597
pubmed: 29617595
Med Care. 2020 Dec;58(12):1037-1043
pubmed: 32925453
Front Public Health. 2020 May 05;8:124
pubmed: 32432069
SSM Popul Health. 2022 May 21;18:101129
pubmed: 35647259
Front Public Health. 2020 Mar 11;8:72
pubmed: 32219089
Annu Rev Med. 2018 Jan 29;69:29-39
pubmed: 29029585
Inj Prev. 1999 Sep;5(3):203-7
pubmed: 10518268
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2020 Oct 1;45(5):831-845
pubmed: 32589207
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2019 Jul/Aug;25(4):322-331
pubmed: 31136505
J Healthc Manag. 2020 Jul-Aug;65(4):256-264
pubmed: 32639319
J Rural Health. 2018 Mar;34(2):182-192
pubmed: 28543829
Health Promot Pract. 2018 Sep;19(5):673-683
pubmed: 29380634
Fam Med. 2016 Sep;48(8):635-7
pubmed: 27655197
Annu Rev Public Health. 2015 Mar 18;36:545-57
pubmed: 25785895
Front Public Health. 2020 Jun 02;8:197
pubmed: 32582607
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Mar;37(3):364-370
pubmed: 29505382
Health Policy. 2019 May;123(5):472-479
pubmed: 30878172
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018 Jul/Aug;24(4):326-334
pubmed: 28832433
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Mar;39(3):494-501
pubmed: 32119633
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2021 Jan/Feb;27(1):80-87
pubmed: 31415264
BMJ Open. 2021 Nov 10;11(11):e050284
pubmed: 34758992
Am J Public Health. 2010 Nov;100(11):2094-102
pubmed: 20864728
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Oct;262:113252
pubmed: 32771874
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2023 Mar-Apr 01;29(2):E50-E57
pubmed: 36332229
Am J Public Health. 2022 Nov;112(S9):S904-S908
pubmed: 36446061
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Nov 1;35(11):1982-1990
pubmed: 27834237
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2018;12(1S):139-147
pubmed: 29755057
Health Promot Pract. 2017 May;18(3):437-443
pubmed: 27091607
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2019 Sep/Oct;25(5):423-430
pubmed: 31348156
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2017;11(2):167-173
pubmed: 28736409
J Healthc Manag. 2021 May-Jun 01;66(3):170-198
pubmed: 33960964
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2022 Aug 1;47(4):473-496
pubmed: 35044461
Lancet Public Health. 2022 Aug;7(8):e718-e720
pubmed: 35907422
Qual Health Res. 2020 May;30(6):947-959
pubmed: 31959073
Fam Community Health. 2021 Jul-Sep 01;44(3):136-145
pubmed: 33055572
Popul Health Manag. 2019 Feb;22(1):25-31
pubmed: 29920157
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2013 Summer;7(2):115-22
pubmed: 23793242
Am J Prev Med. 2023 Jan;64(1):26-32
pubmed: 36127195
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2019 Aug 20;7(1):44
pubmed: 31497616
Am J Public Health. 2018 May;108(5):676-682
pubmed: 29565662
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Aug 1;35(8):1471-9
pubmed: 27503973
Fed Regist. 2014 Dec 31;79(250):78953-9016
pubmed: 25562896

Auteurs

Marcela Nava (M)

School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, United States.

Amanda S English (AS)

Institute for Implementation Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.

Linda Fulmer (L)

Institute for Implementation Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.

Katherine Sanchez (K)

Institute for Implementation Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.

Articles similaires

Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
Humans Emergency Service, Hospital Child Child, Preschool Infant
Humans Mobile Applications Hepatitis C Male Female

How Certification Exams Reflect Current Practice.

Tara L Myers, Sean DeGarmo, Marianne Horahan
1.00
Humans Certification Clinical Competence Education, Nursing, Continuing Adult

Classifications MeSH