Engaging Community-Based Veterans' Organizations in Health Promotion Programs

Abstract

Community organizations, such as churches, clubs, and senior centers, can be important locations for health programs. However, little is known about the organizational factors that influence participation and engagement in health programs. To learn more, we evaluated a community-based program designed to help US military veterans better manage their high blood pressure. The program involved training a pair of veterans to deliver health-related presentations at their local units. We found that factors such as larger meeting attendance size, rural location, age diversity, and member enthusiasm were positively associated with both a willingness to participate and a high level of engagement in program activities.

A systematic review of components of community-based organisation engagement

“…The majority of studies ( n = 13) in this review were case studies. The remaining studies included quantitative design (Bloom et al., ; Chandra et al., ; Geist, ; Glik et al., ; Goytia et al., ; Patterson et al., ); qualitative design (Boutain & McNees, ; Burkhalter et al., ; Collignon, Men, & Tan, ; Honeycutt et al., ; Johnson et al., ; Radermacher, Karunarathna, Grace, & Feldman, ; Taras et al., ); systematic review (Frew et al., ); and mixed‐method design (Houston et al., ; Kakietek et al., ; Kelaher et al., ; Laborde, Brannock, Breland‐Noble, & Parrish, ; Riehman et al., ).…”

“…Three quantitative studies met all the criteria from CASP tool (Chandra et al., ; Glik et al., ; Goytia et al., ). Points were deducted from quantitative studies that did not describe: the measures used and data collection strategy (Bloom et al., ; Geist, ; Patterson et al., ). The systematic review met all the CASP tool criteria (Frew et al., ).…”

Participant Variation by Delivery Site Type in an Evidence-Based Physical Activity Program

“…Type of delivery site , which may include senior centers, faith-based organizations (Campbell et al, 2007), or veteran service organizations (Patterson et al, 2011) is one factor influencing participant outcomes. Faith-based settings for health promotion programs offer unique resources that may improve participant outcomes.…”

“…Faith-based settings for health promotion programs offer unique resources that may improve participant outcomes. For example, faith settings tend to be quite stable with consistent membership and attendance; participants in health promotion programs in faith settings may be more likely to attend consistently over time, maximizing their exposure to the intervention (Campbell et al, 2007) In the case of veteran service organizations, greater distance from the local Veterans Affairs facility was positively correlated with higher program engagement among participants, indicating veteran service posts are an important resource for health promotion programming for veterans with less geographic access to Veterans Affairs facilities (Patterson et al, 2011). Partnerships with nontraditional partners of health promotion such as parks and recreation departments, national non-profit networks and general community centers can improve access to health promotion programming for older adults who may have limited transportation resources, and can reach traditionally underserved communities in greater need of health promotion interventions (Ory et al, 2010; Stewart et al, 1997).…”

“…Personal characteristics of the participants have been shown to influence program completion rates, pointing to the importance of accounting for participant variation in intervention dissemination research, especially with regard to ethnic minorities and underserved groups (Patterson et al, 2011; Smith, Ory, Belza, & Altpeter, 2012; Yancey, Ory, & Davis, 2006); participants completing programs, or maximizing their exposure to evidence-based interventions, are most likely to realize benefits of the intervention. Stewart and colleagues reported a successful physical activity intervention in low-income senior housing that was tailored to accommodate participant physical abilities, health status, income and transportation resources (1997).…”