Strong Rural Communities Initiative: An Assessment of Partnership Principles

1
Strong Rural Communities InitiativeAn
Assessment of Partnership Principles

• Eric Gass, PhD
• Syed M. Ahmed, MD, MPH, DrPH
• Center for Healthy Communities

2
Background

• The community partner for the SRCI is the Rural
  Health Development Council
• The RHDC works to link rural health and community
  development, is appointed by the Governor,
  confirmed by the Senate, and staffed by the
  Wisconsin Office of Rural Health
• In 2004, SRCI was designed to support Healthiest
  Wisconsin 2010 by implementing sustainable rural
  models for medical, public health, and business
  collaboration in order to enhance preventive
  health services in rural Wisconsin
• Statewide RFP process in 2005 produced 22
  proposals to partner with the Center for Healthy
  Communities (CHC).
• The rural community partners are Langlade,
  Manitowoc, and Waupaca Counties.

3
Methods

• CHC faculty, in conjunction with the Center for
  Health Systems Research and Analysis at UW,
  developed a survey to assess the structure and
  functioning of SRCI partnerships.
• Fifteen surveys were sent to each of the rural
  communities in August 2007
• Participants included managers from businesses
  implementing worksite wellness program, hospital
  executives, public health workers, and other
  members of the health coalition leadership.
• Twenty-eight completed surveys were returned to
  the CHC for analysis. This study was reviewed
  and approved by the MCW IRB.

4
Analysis

• Assessed importance and achievement of
  partnership principles and activities
• Members feel comfortable being open and honest
• Tasks are completed on schedule
• Areas of emphasis
• Partnership Process
• Collaborative Outcomes
• Community Outcomes

5
Analysis

• Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test used
• Non-parametric test
• Small sample size
• Ordinal data
• Instead of comparing means, the Wilcoxon test
  compares the ranks of the responses
• Response categories 4 and 5 were merged, reducing
  variability, but allowing for a more accurate
  comparison

6
Results

• Partnership Process results
• 14 of 25 items had no significant differences
• Areas of strength include
• Trust among partners
• Active participation among partners and
  acceptance of others perspective
• Clear mission and goals for the partnership
• Established roles for each partner
• Achievement of short-term goals
• Using outcomes to develop future efforts

7
Results

• Partnership Process results
• 11 of 25 items showed high importance and low
  achievement
• Areas of improvement include
• Improve clear, honest, and open communication
• Timeliness of task completion
• Inclusion of high-level, visible leaders
• Accumulation of adequate resources
• Measurement and achievement of long-term goals
• Lack of shared decision-making
• Active recruitment of new, diverse members

8
Results

• Collaborative Outcome results
• 1 of 13 items had no significant difference
• Area of strength
• Sense of collaborative accomplishment
• 12 of 13 items showed high importance and low
  achievement
• Areas of improvement include
• Sustainability
• Outcomes measurement
• Increase policy change efforts
• Publicity

9
Results

• Community Outcomes results
• 3 of 10 items had no significant difference
• Areas of strength include
• Creation of new relationships
• Feeling that worksite wellness programs improve
  health
• 7 of 10 items had high importance and low
  achievement
• Areas of improvement include
• Increase pride, awareness, and publicity of SRCI
  programs
• Increase attractiveness of community through
  health programs
• Inclusion of participants families in health
  programs

10
Conclusion/Next Steps

• Re-administer survey in Summer 2009
• Give feedback to local communities and help with
• Identification of new funding sources
• Discuss publicity plans
• Identify policy change opportunities
• Potentially institutionalize program within state
  government