2012
DOI: 10.1353/cpr.2012.0035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Connecting Boston's Public Housing Developments to Community Health Centers: Who's Ready for Change?

Abstract: We found a mismatch in readiness to address community health priorities. Although health centers have programs to address health issues, community awareness of programs is limited and barriers to engaging in care persist. The model provided a useful tool for engaging communities into shared program planning.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It was less common to find applications of non-geographic communities brought together by a shared interest. Where shared interests were utilised, they included sexual orientation [ 28 ], cycling [ 29 ], or use of a community health centre [ 30 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was less common to find applications of non-geographic communities brought together by a shared interest. Where shared interests were utilised, they included sexual orientation [ 28 ], cycling [ 29 ], or use of a community health centre [ 30 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even with receipt of housing, public housing residents may face challenges to meet their needs (e.g., safety, food, recreation) because they still have low incomes, which negatively influences health and healthcare use (Battaglia et al 2012) and housing stability. Therefore, the other social determinants of health-income, early child development, education, (un)employment, food security, and social exclusion-must be addressed by making investments in these areas as well.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A priori power calculation for a paired t -test estimated that 25 respondents were required to detect a mean difference of 0.50 in community readiness scores, with power of 0.80 and alpha of 0.05. Based on previous studies, the standard deviation was estimated at 0.85 [ 28 ]. Contact summary forms were analysed through qualitative content analysis by the first and last authors.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%