Increasing Community Readiness for Childhood Obesity Prevention: A Case Study of Four Communities in Georgia

Abstract

The community readiness model (CRM) was used to assess changes in community readiness across four counties in Georgia that were targeted as part of a 3-year Childhood Obesity Prevention Program. Key respondent interviews were conducted with community stakeholders in 2012 (n = 20) and 2017 (n = 18) using a semistructured questionnaire assessing six dimensions of community readiness (i.e., community efforts, community knowledge of efforts, leadership, community climate, community knowledge about the issue, and resources available to support efforts). Interviews were analyzed using the CRM scoring protocol and qualitative methods. Paired t tests were used to compare mean score differences between baseline and follow-up assessments. At baseline, overall mean readiness scores for the four counties ranged from 4.52 to 5.05 on the CRM 9-point scale. At follow-up, overall readiness scores ranged from 6.01 to 6.97 out of 9.00. Data revealed a statistically significant improvement in scores across all communities (+1.70, p = .007; 95% confidence interval [0.87, 2.51]). Data also revealed statistically significant improvements in every dimension of readiness, except community knowledge of the issue. Information gleaned from interviews suggested that investing in staff to support efforts, building awareness to shift the community climate, and cross sector collaboration contributed to improved community readiness among the study communities. The provision of technical assistance, peer learning opportunities, and financial support as part of a cooperative grant initiative holds promise for increasing the capacity of community coalitions to advance childhood obesity prevention efforts in their local communities.

Building community capacity to stimulate physical activity and dietary behavior in Dutch secondary schools: Evaluation of the FLASH intervention using the REAIM framework

“…In line with other studies, we observed the most notable improvements in leadership ( 15 , 36 , 37 ). An essential element of the FLASH intervention was that HSCs were provided with time, which enabled them to take on a leadership role.…”

“…We observed limited improvements in the local network strategy, as stakeholders were uncertain about their role to build networks. Previous studies have found mixed results on this strategy ( 15 , 36 , 37 ). However, these studies focused mainly on helping communities to apply for additional grants, unlike the FLASH intervention where we aimed at encouraging schools to build local and national partnerships that fit within the existing Dutch Healthy School approach.…”

“…To our knowledge, only a few studies have used the CRC method to monitor change in community capacity to assess the impact of community-based interventions ( 15 , 36 , 37 ). Similar to FLASH, the interventions involved in these studies were aimed at strengthening collaborations and promoting ownership and resulted in similar increases in community capacity, with particular improvements in leadership.…”

“…Comparable to these studies, the FLASH schools started the intervention with an overall capacity score between the vague awareness and pre-planning stages of readiness and increased to approximately the preparation stage over a three-year period. The finding that none of the schools increased to a capacity score above the initiation stage on any of the capacity-building strategies highlights the fact that the school communities might require more time or may need more support to structurally embed their efforts ( 15 , 36 , 37 ).…”

Moving the needle on health inequities: principles and tactics for effective cross-sector population health networks

“…To maximize the impact of a cross-sector network, partners must assess their individual organizational readiness and ability to participate in the network and its activities [ 24 ]. In considering readiness, network partners should cultivate support and commitment within their organizations for changes that will facilitate the network's work, such as securing funding for staff to devote time to participating in the network, creating changes to workflows to carry out or support the networks activities, and/or incorporating changes to organizational policies to align and reinforce the work of the network [ 25 ]. This effort can institutionalize policies that prioritize engagement in network activities and goals that outlive leadership and staff transitions, ensuring that participation in the network does not fade when organizations undergo personnel changes.…”