Urban HEART Detroit: a Tool To Better Understand and Address Health Equity Gaps in the City
- 274 Downloads
The Urban Health Equity Assessment Response Tool (Urban HEART) combines statistical evidence and community knowledge to address urban health inequities. This paper describes the process of adopting and implementing this tool for Detroit, Michigan, the first city in the USA to use it. The six steps of Urban HEART were implemented by the Healthy Environments Partnership, a community-based participatory research partnership made up of community-based organizations, health service providers, and researchers based in academic institutions. Local indicators and benchmarks were identified and criteria established to prioritize a response plan. We examine how principles of CBPR influenced this process, including the development of a collaborative and equitable process that offered learning opportunities and capacity building among all partners. For the health equity matrix, 15 indicators were chosen within the Urban HEART five policy domains: physical environment and infrastructure, social and human development, economics, governance, and population health. Partners defined the criteria and ranked them for use in assessing and prioritizing health equity gaps. Subsequently, partners generated a series of potential actions for indicators prioritized in this process. Engagement of community partners contributed to benchmark selection and modification, and provided opportunities for dialog and co-learning throughout the process. Application of a CBPR approach provided a foundation for engagement of partners in the Urban HEART process of identifying health equity gaps. This approach offered multiple opportunities for discussion that shaped interpretation and development of strategies to address identified issues to achieve health equity.
KeywordsUrban health Health equity Social determinants of health Health equity assessment Detroit
We would like to thank the HEP Steering Committee: Chandler Park Conservancy, Detroit Health Department, Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation, Eastside Community Network, Friends of Parkside, Henry Ford Health System, Institute for Population Health, University of Michigan School of Public Health, and community members-at-large, for their contributions to the work described here.
Funding for the study was provided by the World Health Organization Kobe Center in Japan, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R24MD001619), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01 ES022616 and P30ES017885), and Fred A. and Barbara M. Erb Family Foundation.
- 1.Sugrue TJ. The origins of the urban crisis: race and inequality in postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2014.Google Scholar
- 8.Israel BA, Krieger J, Vlahov D, et al. Challenges and facilitating factors in sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: lessons learned from the Detroit, New York City and Seattle urban research centers. J Urban Health Bull N Y Acad Med. 2006;83(6):1022–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9110-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.WHO. Urban HEART Manual. http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/publications/urban_heart_manual.pdf?ua=1. Published 2010. Accessed 18 Dec 2016.
- 11.Prasad A, Kano M, Dagg KA-M, et al. Prioritizing action on health inequities in cities: an evaluation of Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool (Urban HEART) in 15 cities from Asia and Africa. Soc Sci Med. 2015;145:237–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19(1):173–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA. Chapter 1: introduction to methods for cbpr for health. In: Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, editors. Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research For Health. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2013. p. 3–38.Google Scholar
- 14.Abbey-Lambertz K. 11 stereotypes Detroiters are tired of hearing | The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/detroit-stereoptypes-misconceptions-blank-slate_n_6800606.html. Published March 5, 2015. Accessed 18 Dec 2016.
- 16.Bureau UC. American Community Survey (ACS). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs. Accessed 22 Dec 2016.
- 17.US EPA O. 2011 NATA: assessment results. https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2011-nata-assessment-results. Accessed 22 Dec 2016.
- 18.Veinot TC, Okullo D. Data Driven Detroit. Neighborhood effects: health outcomes dataset. Ann Arbor, MI: Deep Blue Data; 2016.Google Scholar
- 19.Lantz PM, House JS, Lepkowski J, Williams DR, Mero R, Chen J. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9624022?dopt=Abstract. Published 1998. Accessed 19 Dec 2016.
- 21.Asadi-Lari M, Vaez-Mahdavi M, Faghihzadeh S, et al. The application of urban health equity assessment and response tool (Urban HEART) in Tehran; concepts and frameworks. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2010;24(3):175–85.Google Scholar
- 22.Centre for Research in Inner City Health. Urban HEART @ Toronto: Technical report/user guide. Centre for Research in Inner City Health. 2014. http://www.torontohealthprofiles.ca/urbanheartattoronto/UrbanHeart_TechnicalReport_v1.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2016.
- 24.Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy people 2020: social determinants of health. 2014. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health. Accessed on December 8, 2016.
- 25.Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. A new way to talk about the social determinants of health. http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2010/rwjf63023. Published 2010. Accessed 22 Dec 2016.
- 29.Israel BA, Lantz PM, McGranaghan RJ, Guzman RJ, Lichtenstein R, Rowe Z. Chapter 13: documentation and evaluation of CBPR partnerships: the use of in-depth interviews and closed-ended questionnaires. In: Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, editors. Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research For Health. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2013. p. 369–98.Google Scholar
- 30.Schulz AJ, Israel BA, Lantz PM. Chapter 24: Assessing and strengthening characteristics of effective groups in community based participatory research partnerships. In: Garvin CD, Gutierrez LM, Galinsky MJ, editors. Handbook of Social Work with Groups. New York City: Guilford Press; 2017. p. 433–53.Google Scholar