ArticlePreventive medicine reports2018
Development of a wellness trust to improve population health: Case-study of a United States urban center.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Across the United States health systems are recognizing the urgency of addressing the social determinants of health in order to improve population health. Wellness trusts, modeled after financial trusts support primary health prevention in community settings, provide an innovative opportunity for better community-clinical linkages, collaboration, and impact. This study aimed to understand the necessary tenets for a wellness trust in Brooklyn, New York (USA) and examined community interest and political will; administrative, financing, and leadership structures; and metrics and data sources to monitor and assess impact. We employed a multi-method design. Key informant interviews (KIIs) (n = 15) were conducted from 7/2016 to 1/2017. A content analysis of grey literature was used to analyze community interest and political will (n = 38). Extant datasets, such as New York City Community District profiles, were reviewed, and a narrative review was used to assess cost-effectiveness of prevention interventions (n = 33). The KIIs and grey literature underwent thematic analysis. Findings indicated healthcare issues dominated the health agenda despite recognition of social determinants of health. Braided funding (discrete funds that are coordinated but tracked separately) and blended funding (funds pooled from multiple sources tracked together) are common funding mechanisms. Robust data systems exist to assess impact. Indicators should address social determinants, performance and impact, be measurable, geographically specific, and include communities. Wellness trusts should be sustainable, engage communities, foster collaboration, and have adequate capacity. The Collective Impact Framework, a mechanism to coordinate and maximize efforts, offers this organizational structure. Wellness trusts are promising mechanisms to advance population health.
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.