ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2014
Beacon communities' public health initiatives: a case study analysis.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- IT-enabled Community Health Interventions: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Beacon Communities for Public Health (BCPH) project was launched in 2011 to gain a better understanding of the range of activities currently being conducted in population- and public health by the Beacon Communities. The project highlighted the successes and challenges of these efforts with the aim of sharing this information broadly among the public health community.
backgroundThe Beacon Community Program, designed to showcase technology-enabled, community-based initiatives to improve outcomes, focused on: building and strengthening health information technology (IT) infrastructure and exchange capabilities; translating investments in health IT to measureable improvements in cost, quality, and population health; and, developing innovative approaches to performance measurement, technology, and care delivery.
methodsFour multimethod case studies were conducted based on a modified sociotechnical framework to learn more about public health initiative implementation and use in the Beacon Communities. Our methodological approach included using document review and semistructured key informant interviews. NACCHO Model Practice Program criteria were used to select the public health initiatives included in the case studies.
findingsDespite differences among the case studies, common barriers and facilitators were found to be present in all areas of the sociotechnical framework application including structure, people, technology, tasks, overarching considerations, and sustainability. Overall, there were many more facilitators (range = 7-14) present for each Beacon compared to barriers (range = 4-6). DISCUSSION: Four influential promising practices were identified through the work: forging strong and sustainable partnerships; ensuring a good task-technology fit and a flexible and iterative design; fostering technology acceptance; and, providing education and demonstrating value.
conclusionsA common weakness was the lack of a framework or model for the Beacon Communities evaluation work. Sharing a framework or approach to evaluation at the beginning of implementation made the work more effective. Supporting evaluation to inform future implementations is important.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.