Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38218785›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Inclusive and intersectoral: community health improvement planning opportunities to advance the social determinants of health and health equity.

C Ross Hatton, Rasika Kale, Keshia M Pollack Porter, Yeeli Mui

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Consensus on Care Competencies for Community Citizens in Japan: A Modified Delphi Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  5. Effects of Community Health Improvement Process on Sanitary Latrine Usage in a Rural Village of Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C Ross HattonDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. chatton2@jhu.edu.
Rasika KaleDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Keshia M Pollack PorterDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Yeeli MuiDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity health improvement plans (CHIPs) are strategic planning tools that help local communities identify and address their public health needs. Many local health departments have developed a CHIP, yet there is a lack of research on the extent to which these plans address root causes of health disparities such as the social determinants of health. This study aims to inventory the social determinants of health included in 13 CHIPs and examine facilitators and challenges faced by local health departments and partners when trying to include the social determinants of health.

methodsWe conducted a comparative plan evaluation by scoring 13 CHIPs on their inclusion of equity orientation, inclusive planning processes, and five social determinants of health: health care access and quality, the neighborhood and built environment, economic stability, social and community context, and education access and quality. To supplement the plan evaluation, we conducted 32 in-depth interviews with CHIP leaders and stakeholders to understand the factors contributing to the inclusion and exclusion of the social determinants of health in the planning process.

resultsCHIPs received an average score of 49/100 for the inclusion of the social determinants of health. Most plans addressed health care access and quality and the neighborhood and built environment, but they often did not address economic stability, the social and community context, and education access and quality. Regarding their overall equity orientation, CHIPs received an average score of 35/100, reflecting a relative lack of attention to equity and inclusive planning processes in the plans. Interviews revealed that challenges engaging partners, making clear connections between CHIPs and social determinants, and a lack of capacity or public and partner support often led to the exclusion of the social determinants of health. Recommendations to improve planning processes include improving data infrastructure, providing resources for dedicated planning staff and community engagement incentives, and centering equity throughout the planning process.

conclusionsAlthough local health departments can leverage CHIPs to improve population health and address health disparities, they face a range of challenges to including the social determinants of health in CHIPs. Additional resourcing and improved data are needed to facilitate broader inclusion of these determinants, and more work is needed to elevate equity throughout these planning processes.

Indexed as

Health EquityPublic HealthCommunity Health PlanningHumansResidence CharacteristicsSocial Determinants of HealthCommunity health improvement plansHealth equitySocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID38218785
PMCPMC10790276
OpenAlexW4390839485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.