Search

BackgroundThere is growing concern about the sustainability and long-term impact of short-term medical missions (STMMs)-an increasingly common form of foreign medical aid-given that brief engagements do little to address the underlying poverty and fragmented healthcare system that plagues many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In the absence of formal evaluations, unintended but serious consequences for patients and local communities may arise, including a lack of continuity of patient care, poor alignment with community needs, and cultural and language barriers.ObjectiveWe conducted semi-structured interviews with Honduran healthcare providers (n = 88) in 2015 to explore local providers' perceptions of the impact and sustainability of foreign medical aid on patient needs, community health, and the country's healthcare system.MethodsRespondents represented a random sample of Honduran healthcare providers (physicians, dentists, nurses) who worked for either a government-run rural clinic or non-governmental organization (NGO) in Honduras.FindingsHonduran healthcare providers largely framed foreign medical teams as being assets that help to advance community health through the provision of medical personnel and supplies. Nonetheless, most respondents identified strategies to improve implementation of STMMs and reduce negative impacts. Many respondents emphasized a need for culturally- and linguistically-tailored medical care and health education interventions. Participants also recommended strengthening local partnerships to mitigate the risk of dependence, including on-going training and support of community health workers to promote sustainable change.ConclusionsGuidelines informed by local Honduran expertise are needed to increase accountability for more robust training of foreign physicians in the provision of context-appropriate care. These findings provide valuable local perspectives from Honduran healthcare providers to improve the development and implementation of STMMs, informing strategies that can complement and strengthen healthcare systems in LMICs.

Addressing the translational gap between research evidence and state health policy requires an understanding of the current use of research evidence in the state policymaking process. In this study, we explore the use of research evidence to inform the legislative debate about restaurant nutrition labeling policy in California. In 2008, California was the first state to enact a mandatory menu calorie labeling policy in the U.S. Using a qualitative approach, we examine data sources and types of evidence used in legislative documents (n = 87) related to six menu labeling bills introduced in California's state legislature between 2003 and 2008. Federal- and state-level government agency reports were the most frequently cited sources of technical knowledge. Advocacy coalition members who were active participants involved in the policy debate were also cited as experts. Five of the six bills included evidence in related legislative documents. While documents included considerable evidence on the magnitude and severity of the obesity problem to justify policy enactment, there were a limited number of statements referring to policy effectiveness and only one statement identified attesting to implementation context and acceptability. Reference to evidence on related policy suggests policy precedence may also play an important role in policy decision making. There is a need to improve the dissemination of obesity policy effectiveness and implementation studies in a politically time sensitive manner to influence state health policy debates. Strategies are discussed to effectively integrate the use of research evidence in the state health policymaking process.

ObjectivesWe explored how perceived barriers and facilitators influence healthy eating and investigated the acceptability of changes to school lunch meals among adolescents after implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.MethodsWe conducted 8 focus groups with adolescents (N = 64) at 3 South Los Angeles high schools. Data collection instruments included a semi-structured guide and questionnaire. Two researchers independently coded transcripts.ResultsMost participants believed fruits and vegetables were available in their community and reported high relative cost, poor quality, and lack of motivation as barriers to consumption. Many said school meals were an important source of healthy food and were aware of recent changes to the school lunch program. A primary facilitator to eating school lunches was access to fresh food items (eg, a salad bar). Perceived barriers included long cafeteria lines, time constraints, lack of variety, and limited quantities of preferred items. Adolescents viewed off-campus food establishments near the school as competition to school meals.ConclusionsOur findings suggest the need to measure perceived and actual barriers to healthy eating among adolescents and to examine the effect of these barriers on dietary behavior. We provide programmatic and policy recommendations.

This study is a process evaluation of a clinical-community partnership that implemented evidence-based interventions in clinical safety net settings. Adoption and implementation of evidence-based interventions in these settings can help reduce health disparities by improving the quality of clinical preventive services in health care settings with underserved populations. A clinical-community partnership model is a possible avenue to catalyze adoption and implementation of interventions amid organizational barriers to change. Three Federally Qualified Health Centers in South Los Angeles participated in a partnership led by a local community-based organization (CBO) to implement hypertension interventions. Qualitative research methods were used to evaluate intervention selection and implementation processes between January 2014 and June 2015. Data collection tools included a key participant interview guide, health care provider interview guide, and protocol for taking meeting minutes. This case study demonstrates how a CBO acted as an external facilitator and employed a collaborative partnership model to catalyze implementation of evidence-based interventions in safety net settings. The study phases observed included initiation, planning, and implementation. Three emergent categories of organizational facilitators and barriers were identified (personnel capacity, professional development capacity, and technological capacity). Key participants and health care providers expressed a high level of satisfaction with the collaborative and the interventions, respectively. The CBO's role as a facilitator and catalyst is a replicable model to promote intervention adoption and implementation in safety net settings. Key lessons learned are provided for researchers and practitioners interested in partnering with Federally Qualified Health Centers to implement health promotion interventions.

Advocacy coalitions often play an important role in the state health policymaking process, yet little is known about their structure, composition, and behavior. In 2008, California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. Using the advocacy coalition framework, we examine different facets of the coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate. We use a qualitative research approach to identify coalition members and explore their expressed beliefs and policy arguments, resources, and strategies by analyzing legislative documents (n = 87) and newspaper articles (n = 78) produced between 1999 and 2009. Between 2003 and 2008, six menu labeling bills were introduced in the state's legislature. We found the issue received increasing media attention during this period. We identified two advocacy coalitions involved in the debate-a public health (PH) coalition and an industry coalition. State organizations acted as coalition leaders and participated for a longer duration than elected officials. The structure and composition of each coalition varied. PH coalition leadership and membership notably increased compared to the industry coalition. The PH coalition, led by nonprofit PH and health organizations, promoted a clear and consistent message around informed decision making. The industry coalition, led by a state restaurant association, responded with cost and implementation arguments. Each coalition used various resources and strategies to advance desired outcomes. PH coalition leaders were particularly effective at using resources and employing advocacy strategies, which included engaging state legislators as coalition members, using public opinion polls and information, and leveraging media resources to garner support. Policy precedence and a local policy push emerged as important policymaking strategies. Areas for future research on the state health policymaking process are discussed.

BackgroundFood insecurity contributes to poor health outcomes among people living with HIV. In Latin America and the Caribbean, structural factors such as poverty, stigma, and inequality disproportionately affect women and may fuel both the HIV epidemic and food insecurity.MethodsWe examined factors contributing to food insecurity among women living with HIV (WLHIV) in the Dominican Republic (DR). Data collection included in-depth, semi-structured interviews in 2013 with 30 WLHIV with indications of food insecurity who resided in urban or peri-urban areas and were recruited from local HIV clinics. In-person interviews were conducted in Spanish. Transcripts were coded using content analysis methods and an inductive approach to identify principal and emergent themes.ResultsRespondents identified economic instability as the primary driver of food insecurity, precipitated by enacted stigma in the labor and social domains. Women described experiences of HIV-related labor discrimination in formal and informal sectors. Women commonly reported illegal HIV testing by employers, and subsequent dismissal if HIV-positive, especially in tourism and free trade zones. Enacted stigma in the social domain manifested as gossip and rejection by family, friends, and neighbors and physical, verbal, and sexual abuse by intimate partners, distancing women from sources of economic and food support. These experiences with discrimination and abuse contributed to internalized stigma among respondents who, as a result, were fearful and hesitant to disclose their HIV status; some participants reported leaving spouses and/or families, resulting in further isolation from economic resources, food and other support. A minority of participants described social support by friends, spouses, families and support groups, which helped to ameliorate food insecurity and emotional distress.ConclusionsAddressing food insecurity among WLHIV requires policy and programmatic interventions to enforce existing laws designed to protect the rights of people living with HIV, reduce HIV-related stigma, and improve gender equality.

Advocacy coalitions often play an important role in the state health policymaking process, yet little is known about their structure, composition, and behavior. In 2008, California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. Using the advocacy coalition framework, we examine different facets of the coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate. We use a qualitative research approach to identify coalition members and explore their expressed beliefs and policy arguments, resources, and strategies by analyzing legislative documents (n = 87) and newspaper articles (n = 78) produced between 1999 and 2009. Between 2003 and 2008, six menu labeling bills were introduced in the state's legislature. We found the issue received increasing media attention during this period. We identified two advocacy coalitions involved in the debate—a public health (PH) coalition and an industry coalition. State organizations acted as coalition leaders and participated for a longer duration than elected officials. The structure and composition of each coalition varied. PH coalition leadership and membership notably increased compared to the industry coalition. The PH coalition, led by nonprofit PH and health organizations, promoted a clear and consistent message around informed decision making. The industry coalition, led by a state restaurant association, responded with cost and implementation arguments. Each coalition used various resources and strategies to advance desired outcomes. PH coalition leaders were particularly effective at using resources and employing advocacy strategies, which included engaging state legislators as coalition members, using public opinion polls and information, and leveraging media resources to garner support. Policy precedence and a local policy push emerged as important policymaking strategies. Areas for future research on the state health policymaking process are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]