A Model-Driven Approach to Qualitatively Assessing the Added Value of Community Coalitions
- 181 Downloads
Community-based coalitions are commonly formed to plan and to carry out public health interventions. The literature includes evaluations of coalition structure, composition, and functioning; evaluations of community-level changes achieved through coalition activities; and the association between coalition characteristics and various indicators of success. Little information is available on the comparative advantage or “added value” of conducting public health interventions through coalitions as opposed to less structured collaborative mechanisms. This paper describes a qualitative, iterative process carried out with site representatives of the Controlling Asthma in American Cities Project (CAACP) to identify outcomes directly attributable to coalitions. The process yielded 2 complementary sets of results. The first were criteria that articulated and limited the concept of “added value of coalitions”. The criteria included consensus definitions, an organizing figure, a logic model, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The second set of results identified site-specific activities that met the definitional criteria and were, by agreement, examples of CAACP coalitions’ added value. Beyond the specific findings relevant to the added value of coalitions in this project, the use of a social ecological model to identify the components of added value and the placement of those components within a logic model specific to coalitions should provide useful tools for those planning and assessing coalition-based projects.
KeywordsAsthma Coalitions Community interventions Socio-ecological model of influence
The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The authors gratefully acknowledge Gail Brottman, Cizely Curian, Vicky Persky, Gloria Thomas, Dolores Weems, and Kristin Wilson for reviewing their sites’ outcome spreadsheets, and Maureen Wilce for her valuable comments on early drafts of the manuscript.
- 3.Feighery E, Rogers T. Building and maintaining effective coalitions. Second edition. Palo Alto, CA: Health Promotion Resource Center, Stanford Center of Research in Disease Prevention; 1990.Google Scholar
- 5.Butterfoss FD, Kegler MC. Toward a comprehensive understanding of community coalitions. In: DiClemente R, Crosby R, Kegler MC, eds. Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research: strategies for improving public health. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002: 157–193.Google Scholar
- 12.Collie-Akers VL, Fawcett SB, Schultz JA, Carson V, Cyprus J, Pierle JE. Analyzing a community-based coalition’s efforts to reduce health disparities and the risk for chronic disease in Kansas City, Missouri. Prev Chron Dis. 2007; 4(3): A66.Google Scholar
- 14.Herman EJ, Garbe P, McGeehin M. Assessing community-based approaches to asthma control: the Controlling Asthma in American Cities Project. J Urban Health 2010.Google Scholar
- 15.Herman EJ. Conceptual framework of the Controlling Asthma in American Cities project. J Urban Health 2010.Google Scholar
- 16.Bruce T, Uranga McKane S, MacAllister Brock R. Taking a community-based public health approach: how does it make a difference? In: Bruce TA, McKane SU, eds. Community-based public health: a partnership model. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2000: 99–108.Google Scholar