Search

Background: Addressing social risks in the clinical setting can increase patient confidence in the availability of community resources and may contribute to the development of a therapeutic alliance which has been correlated with treatment adherence and improved quality of life in mental health contexts. It is not well understood what barriers patients face when trying to connect to community resources that help address social risks. This paper aims to describe patient-reported barriers to accessing and using social needs-related resources to which they are referred by a program embedded in a safety net primary care clinic., Methods: This is a qualitative assessment of patient-reported barriers to accessing and using social needs assistance programs. We conducted over 100 in-depth interviews with individuals in Northern California who participated in a navigation and referral program to help address their social needs and describe a unique framework for understanding how policies and systems intersect with an individual's personal life circumstances., Results: Individuals described two distinct domains of barriers: 1) systems-level barriers that were linked to the inequitable distribution of and access to resources, and 2) personal-level barriers that focused on unique limitations experienced by each patient and impacted the way that they accessed services in their communities. While these barriers often overlapped or manifested in similar outcomes, this distinction was key because the systems barriers were not things that individuals could control or overcome through their own initiative or by increasing individual capacity., Conclusions: Respondents describe intersecting systemic and personal barriers that compound patients' challenges to getting their social needs met; this includes both a picture of the inequitable distribution of and access to social services and a profile of the limitations created by individual life histories. These results speak to the need for structural changes to improve adequacy, availability, and accessibility of social needs resources. These findings highlight the need for advocacy to address systems barriers, especially the stigma that is faced by people who struggle with a variety of health and social issues, and investment in incentives to strengthen relationships between health care settings and social service agencies., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Improving community health "from the ground up" entails a comprehensive ecological approach, deep involvement of community-based entities, and addressing social determinants of population health status. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of the Surgeon General, and other authorities have called for public health to be an "inter-sector" enterprise, few models have surfaced that feature local health departments as a key part of the collaborative model for effecting community-level change. This paper presents evaluation findings and lessons learned from the Partnership for the Public's Health (PPH), a comprehensive community initiative that featured a central role for local health departments with their community partners. Funded by The California Endowment, PPH provided technical and financial resources to 39 community partnerships in 14 local health department jurisdictions in California to promote community and health department capacity building and community-level policy and systems change designed to produce long-term improvements in population health. The evaluation used multiple data sources to create progress ratings for each partnership in five goal areas related to capacity building, community health improvement programs, and policy and systems change. Overall results were generally positive; in particular, of the 37 partnerships funded continuously throughout the 5 years of the initiative, between 25% and 40% were able to make a high level of progress in each of the Initiative's five goal areas. Factors associated with partnership success were also identified by local evaluators. These results showed that health departments able to work effectively with community groups had strong, committed leaders who used creative financing mechanisms, inclusive planning processes, organizational changes, and open communication to promote collaboration with the communities they served.