Journal of Community Health

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 4–9 | Cite as

The Culture of Health Survey: A Qualitative Assessment of a Diabetes Prevention Coalition

  • Cecilia B. Rosales
  • M. Kathryn Coe
  • Nancy R. Stroupe
  • Anna Hackman
  • Jill Guernsey de Zapien
Original Paper

Abstract

In the past two decades, the fields of public health and social services have increasingly turned toward collaborative and community-based approaches to address complex health and social issues. One aspect of these approaches has been the development and implementation of community coalitions. Coalitions have been used to successfully address a wide range of issues, including cancer prevention, tobacco use, HIV/AIDS, youth violence, heart disease, diabetes, and sexual exploitation of youth runaways. In south Tucson, Arizona the SEAH coalition was developed to address diabetes and substance abuse prevention. Using a qualitative interview guide, the Culture of Health Survey, this study was aimed at identifying community perceptions of the coalition and its effectiveness in the areas of community leadership, partnerships, trust, and movement towards positive change. We also sought to document the dissemination, throughout a community, of information on the activities and functioning of a community based coalition and whether or not it was seen as one that held fast to the community values and not to individual agendas. Results highlight the importance of outreach, education, trust, and partnerships in promoting diabetes prevention through a community coalition.

Keywords

Coalition building Partnerships Qualitative evaluation 

References

  1. 1.
    May, P., Miller, J., & Wallerstein, N. (1993). Motivation and community prevention of substance abuse. Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, 1, 68–79.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Michau, L. (2007). Approaching old problems in new ways: Community mobilisation as a primary prevention strategy to combat violence against women. Gender and Development, 15(1), 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). (2003). Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gaventa, J. (1993). The powerful, the powerless, and the experts: Knowledge struggles in an information age. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 21–40). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lasker, R., & Weiss, E. (2003). Creating partnership synergy: The critical role of community stakeholders. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 26(1), 119–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Okubo, D., & Weidman, K. (2000). Engaging the community in core public health functions. National Civic Review, 89(4), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moyer, A., Coristine, M., MacLean, L., & Meyer, M. (1999). A model for building collective capacity in community based programs: The elderly in need project. Public Health Nursing, 16(3), 205–214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butterfoss, F., Morrow, A., Webster, J., & Crews, R. (2003). The coalition training institute: Training for the Long Haul. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 9(6), 522–529.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kegler, M., Steckler, A., Mcleroy, K., & Malek, S. (1998). Factors that contribute to effective community health promotion coalitions: A study of 10 Project ASSIST coalitions in North Carolina. Health Education and Behavior, 25, 338–353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kreuter, L., Lezin, N., & Young, L. (2000). Evaluating community-based collaborative mechanisms: Implications for practitioners. Health Promotion Practice, 1, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saewyc, E., Solsvig, W., & Edinburgh, L. (2008). The Hmong Youth Task Force: Evaluation of a coalition to address sexual exploitation of young runaways. Public Health Nursing, 25(1), 69–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mizrahi, T., & Rosenthal, B. (2001). Complexities of coalition building: Leaders’ successes, strategies, and struggles, and solutions. Social Work, 46(1), 63–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akerlund, K. (2000). Prevention program sustainability: The state’s perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(3), 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Butterfoss, F., Goodman, R., & Wandersman, A. (1993). Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion. Health Education Research, 8, 315–330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Butterfoss, F., Morrow, A., Rosenthal, J., et al. (1998). CINCH: An urban coalition for empowerment and action. Health Education and Behavior, 25, 212–225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Friedman, A., & Wicklund, K. (2006). Allies against asthma: A midstream comment on sustainability. Health Promotion Practice, 7, 140S–148S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kumpfer, K., Turner, C., Hopkins, R., & Librett, J. (1993). Leadership and team effectiveness in community coalitions for the prevention of alcohol and other drug abuse. Health Education Research, 20(4), 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Potapchuk, W., Crocker, J., & Schechter, W. (1997). Systems reform and local government: Improving outcomes for children, families, and neighborhoods-A working paper. Report to the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schlaff, A. L. (1991). Boston’s codman square community partnership for health promotion. Public Health Reports, 106(2), 186–191.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arizona Department of Health Services. (2003). South Tucson Community Health Profile. http://azdhs.gov/hsd/chpweb/2000/places/68850.pdf. Retrieved September 12, 2008.
  21. 21.
    Graneheim, U., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clarke, J., & Gerlak, A. (1998). Environmental racism in the sunbelt? A cross cultural analysis. Environmental Management, 22(6), 857–867.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Williams, B., & Florez, Y. (2002). Do Mexican Americans perceive environmental issues differently than Caucasians: A study of cross ethnic variation of perceptions related to water in Tucson. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(Suppl 2), 303–310.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia B. Rosales
    • 1
  • M. Kathryn Coe
    • 2
  • Nancy R. Stroupe
    • 1
  • Anna Hackman
    • 1
  • Jill Guernsey de Zapien
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Community, Environment, and Policy, Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public HealthUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Division of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public HealthUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations