Chapter 2 Endnotes

Notation: The number before ">" is the endnote number in the 3rd edition; the number after > is the new endnote number that will appear in the 4th edition. The endnotes provide citations to literature and sources referenced in the text of Chapter 2. Below the endnotes (either just below, or at the end of the endnotes) are the actual bibliographic references for the corresponding citations. References carried over from the 3rd edition may not be listed here (see 3rd edition bibliography).

Table of Contents (click on section to go to new endnotes and references for that section)

1>1. We use the term "community" in most instances to refer to the larger geographically and sometimes geopolitically defined aggregate of people (neighborhood, town, city, county, district, or occasionally, a whole state, region, or country). This is consistent with the most common current usage (MacQueen et al., 2001, in which locus was the most frequently cited of 17 dimensions of community cited by 4% or more of respondents). We will use it in later chapters to refer to organizationally defined communities (e.g., school, work site, industry, church, hospital, or nursing home) through which communication and decisions flow. (See the glossary.) Community, however, appears as a secondary definition in most dictionaries as a reference to a group of people who share a common interest. This use may apply in patient education, self-help groups, and health programs for dispersed groups. Electronic bulletin boards and satellite television open new possibilities for the interactive engagement of dispersed populations in health planning to address their common concerns. Such electronic meetings have been held, for example, to involve chief executive officers of in discussions of the potential for work-site health promotion programs in their industries. It is used currently to engage the community of health personnel across the U.S.A. in planning for anti-terrorism preparedness in their local communities.

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT AND PARTICIPATION: THE RATIONALE

2>2. Social determinants of health. Bunker, 2001, p. 1266. For recent reviews, analyses and commentaries on social determinants of health, see Beaglehole, 2002; Berkman & Kawachi, 2000; Green & Potvin, 2002; Hart, 2002; Marmot, 2000; Marmot & Wilkenson, 1999; McDowell, 2002.

>3. Community coalitions. Berkowitz, 2001; Berlin, Barnett, Mischke, & Ocasio, 2000; Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002; Chavis, 2001; Foster-Frisman, et al., 2001; Green, 2000; Kreuter, Lezin & Young, 2000 (reviewed 68 published descriptions of coalitions and consortia); Lasker, Weiss & Miller, 2001; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000; Sanchez, 2000; Wolff, 2001. The chapter by Butterfoss and Kegler builds on much of this literature, drawing from it seven theoretical constructs related to community coalition formation, structure and processes, and another seven related to coalition interventions and outcomes. From studies of these they derive 23 propositions to formulate a theoretical model of community coalitions.

>4. Social capital. Hawe & Shiell, 2000; Kreuter & Lezin, 2002; Kreuter, Lezin, Young, Koplan, 2001; Last, 2000, 2002; Putnam, 2000.

>5. Reciprocal relationship of social/quality of life issues and health. E.g., Brown, Lipscomb, & Snyder, 2001; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000; Raeburn & Rootman, 1998, esp. chap. 4 on “Health and well-being in a quality of life context,” pp. 53-63; and International Society for Quality of Life Research: http://www.isoqol.org; and http://www.cob.vt.edu/market/isqols/.

3>6. Health an instrumental value, not a terminal value. We avoid the misnomer “healthy” in describing actions, policies, or programs conducive to health (e.g., “healthy behavior” or “healthy public policy”) because these objects of the adjectives are means, not ends; they are not living organisms that can be healthy. At best they can enhance health, and thus may be healthful, health promoting, health protecting, or disease preventing. Similarly, health is an instrumental value for quality-of-life ends.

4>7. Health as a resource for living. First International Conference on Health Promotion, 1986, p. iii. See also Kreuter, Lezin, Kreuter, & Green, 2003, Preface, for the analogy of what a healthy squirrel looks like (from Kass, 1980), and how this applies to populations (also at www.lgreen.net/OverviewofIdeasThatWork.doc); Green & Ottoson, 1999, pp. 3-5.

6>8. Definition of health as functional capacity and adaptability. Last, 2000; see also Last, 2002, p. 520.

5>9. Sociological definition of health. Parsons, 1964, p. 433; for a discussion of “social health,” see McDowell, 2002.

>10. Employers’ criteria for outcomes beyond health. Pelletier, 2001, p.114.

7>11. Tailoring communications to individual and population segments’ ultimate values. E.g., Kreuter, Lezin, Kreuter, & Green, 2003, pp. 177-186; Nansel, Weaver, Donlin, Jacobsen, Kreuter, & Simons-Morton, 2002; Pappaioanou, Malison, et al., 2003; Wilshire, Kreuter, et al., 1997.

8>12. Ultimate values as things people most enjoy. “Things people value and enjoy” can be measured using tools such as the Valued Life Activities (VLA) index, Jette, 1993; or the STARLITE scale, Wilshire et al., 1997.

9>13. Cultural considerations in ultimate values. The phrase in the U.S. Constitution protecting “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” acknowledges that happiness and fulfillment are highly individualized concepts. The wisdom of most philosophical systems suggests that we can help people find the freedom and capacity to pursue those elusive states, but we cannot expect to achieve them for others. Furthermore, happiness and fulfillment are states of being, not permanent traits. As states, they are variable and, therefore, can serve as positive and appropriate goals for promotion. The Canadian variation on the theme of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is “peace, harmony, and good government.” This phrase reflects a cultural difference in ultimate values that conditions how the people of neighboring countries might judge their quality of life and social conditions differently. For examples of the U.S.-Canadian differences in legislators’ perceptions of policy issues in tobacco control and other public health matters, see Cohen et al., 2001; 2002; Studlar 2002.

10>14. Participatory research to assess population’s ultimate values and quality of life. Doll, Berkelman, Rosenfield, & Baker, 2001; Green & Mercer, 2001; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003; Olden, Guthrie, & Newton, 2001. Internet resources for participatory research approaches to community assessment and development are listed and linked at www.goshen.edu/soan/soan96p.htm and guidelines are online at http://www.ihpr.ubc.ca/guidelines.htm.

11>15. Kaiser Family Foundation’s Social Reconnaissance Method. Butler et al., 1996; COPC as approach to making clinical services relevant to population's perspective. For a current community-oriented primary care (COPC) project in the Delta region, funded by another foundation, go to: http://www.dhep.astate.edu/ and for a history of the COPC approach from South Africa to the Mississippi Delta, see Geiger, 2002.

12>16. Measuring personal health-related quality of life. Fryback, Lawrence, Martin, Klein, & Klein, 1997; Lorig, Ritter, Stewart, et al., 2001; Ware & Kosinski, 2001. Some quality-of-life measures taken specifically within social assessments and studies using the Precede-Proceed model are reported by Bartholomew et al., 1997; Cramer, 1994; McGowan & Green, 1995. The notion originally articulated by Fries & Crapo, 1981, of adding life to years rather than merely years to life, or “compression of morbidity,” is discussed in the context of using theory and models such as PRECEDE-PROCEED in patient education planning, by Prohaska & Lorig, 2001. The most widely and consistently applied health-related quality-of-life measure now incorporated in most states of the U.S. is the CDC-designed Health-Related Quality-of-Life measure. See endnote 20 below.

>17. Quality of life measures associated with pain management. Lorig, Laurent, Deyo, et al., 2002.

13>18. Quality of life measures associated with functional disability. Haley, Jette, Coster, et al., 2002; Jette & Keysor, 2002.

14>19. Quality-of-life measures associated with leisure activities. Plante & Schwartz, 1990.

>20. Quality-of-life measures associated with mental health. Holley, 1998, for contrasting Canadian and U.S. perspectives. For environmental and health-related quality-of-life measures from a European perspective, see the European Commission research at http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/ka4/index_en.html, accessed Dec 19, 2002. For a measure of “functional” physical and mental health at the population level, see Burdine, et al., 2000. For an example of the correlations of unemployment rates and other ecological measures with health, see Karpati, Galea, Awerbuch, & Levins, 2002. CDC's website contains details on the 15 health-related quality-of-life measures that have been used selectively in state Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys since 1995 online (accessed October 18, 2003). For other applications of the CDC-BRFSS quality-of-life measures, see Ahluwalia, et al., 2003; Moriarty, Zack, & Kobau, 2003.

16>21. The Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index is a 68-item instrument designed to measure satisfaction with and importance of health juxtaposed to psychological, spiritual, and family-life factors, and has been effectively applied cross-culturally. See Ferrans, 1996.

17>22. Validations of the most widely used measure in medical care settings: Ware & Kosinski, 2001. Variations on the SF-36 instruments are being tested now in 45 countries for cross-cultural validity and adaptation.

>24. Literature on technical assistance. Church, Saunders, Wanke, Pong, Spooner, & Dorgan, 2002; Green, 1986f; Minkler, 1997; Wharf Higgins, 2002; and for classics on participatory approaches in health: Morgan &Horning, 1940; Nyswander, 1942; Steuart, 1965.

19>25. Participatory research in developing countries and underserved communities. Eades, Read, & the Bibbulung Gnarneep Team, 1999; Green, George, Daniel, et al., 2003; Green, 2003; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003. For an example from India of a project applying some of these principles, see The Gyandoot Project at: http://www.unescap.org/rural/bestprac/gyandoot.htm (accessed Oct 18, 2003). For similar projects addressing other aspects of rural development in developing countries, http://www.unescap.org/rural/bestprac/index.htm (accessed Oct 18, 2003).

21>26. Concientación refers in this context to consciousness raising for a process whereby persons with limited means become conscious of the political realities and root causes of their situation and take collective action to address them. Shor & Freire, 1987.

22>27. The history and international variations in taking these perceptions into account through participation in health program planning was traced for the World Health Assembly and developed into a formal theory of participation in Green, 1986f. It became operationalized subsequently in new forms of community coalitions, often required by funding agencies in the health fields to represent the diversity of perspectives and perceptions in the planning process. The coalition process, too, has been advanced to the status of a formal theory by Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002.

23>28. Freire, 1970, p. 181. For a discussion contrasting PRECEDE, adult education, and Freire's approaches, see Marsick, 1987, in which PRECEDE was “interpreted from a viewpoint of technical rationality even though it does not have to be so construed. Interpreted narrowly, PRECEDE would emphasize an accurate technical diagnosis of the problem [consulting] with clients and community leaders in problem setting, but the primary purpose would be to discuss the problem in order to develop the best professional solution” (p. 19). We would argue that the best technical or professional solution is one that addresses the felt needs of the community. For more recent applications of Freirian concepts in health, see Minkler, 2000, 2002; Wallerstein & Duran, 2003.

24>29. Contrasting perspectives in community studies. Friere, 1970, p. 183. See also Baum, Bush, et al., 2000; Parker, Lichtenstein, et al., 2001; Wallerstein, Duran, et al., 2003, for examples of contrasting, contradicting, and paradoxical perspectives within community studies, depending on levels of participation in community, socioeconomic variables, and inherent cultural, economic, and infrastructure needs and capacities of a community. .

>30. For a compelling and poignant account of how the conflicting cultures and views of allied professionals and advocates for a common cause (the settlement with the tobacco industry) can undermine their planning and strategic positioning for policy change, read Pertchuck, 2001. See also, Schroeder, 2002. For a “Cultural Assessment Framework” based in part on the Precede-Proceed model, see Huff & Kline, 1999.

25>31. Caveat. We would temper this sentiment in areas of health protection such as water and food safety, as well as health services such as immunizations, where whole populations may be at extreme risk if the values and misunderstandings of a small but vocal group, or even a majority, were to override scientific evidence. This is not, however, to suggest that participatory approaches are more appropriate to health promotion and less important to health protection or health services. Indeed, two of the most significant contemporary initiatives in federal support for participatory research have come from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (O’Fallon & Dearry, 2002; Shepard, Northridge, Prakash & Stover, 2002; and the whole issue in which these articles appear; see also the projects supported by NIEHS, online at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/translat/cbpr/proj2001.htm, accessed Oct 18, 2003). The Indian Health Services and the Health Resources and Services Administration have applied participatory methods in Community-Oriented Primary Care (Nutting, 1990; Williams, 2002, APHA abstract online at http://apha.confex.com/apha/130am/techprogram/paper_49078.htm, accessed Oct 18, 2003). Brown & Fee, 2002, review the history of COPC and note that some recent initiatives seek “to jettison a prescriptive stepwise COPC model in favor of a more fluid and dynamic understanding that emphasizes community engagement and embraces sociopolitical objectives” (p.1712).

>32. Importance of media in creating an informed electorate to support health policies. American Public Health Association, 2000; Biglan, Ary, Smolkowski, Duncan, & Black, 2000; Chapman & Lupton, 1995; Green, Murphy, & McKenna, 2002; McLoughlin & Fennell, 2000; Mindell, 2001; Stead, Hastings, & Eadie, 2002; Stillman, Cronin, Evans, & Ulasevich, 2001; Wallack, Woodruff, Dorfman, & Diaz, 1999. To locate the media organizations in your area of the U.S., go to: http://capwiz.com/astho/dbq/media/ (accessed Oct 19, 2003).

26>33. Importance of participation at more central, as well as local, levels of decision making. Green & Frankish, 1996; Green & Shoveller, 2000; Shoveller & Green, 2002. For descriptions of exemplary state and local actions addressing disparities in health, see National Association of County and City Health Officials, 2000.

27>34. Tension between national, state, and local agencies, and between centralized offices and local employees. Ottoson & Green, 1987; Singh, & Rajamani, 2003.

28>35. Participation. Rose, 1992, pp. 123–124. For a case example of participation in health program planning, see Kreuter, Lezin, Kreuter, & Green, 2003, Chapter 3.

>36. Indigenous capacity and assets of communities. McKnight & Kretzmann, 1997. The National Association of County and City Health Official’s (NACCHO) Assessment Protocol for Excellence in Public Health (APEXPH), 1991, updated 2002, guides local health departments through an organizational capacity assessment and a community health assessment process. APEXPH ’98 – software for the APEXPH process – is also available in CD-ROM or on a set of 6 disks. Go to: http://www.naccho.org/tools.cfm. See also the Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnerships (MAPP) instruments and the Protocol for Assessment of Community Excellence in Environmental Health (PACE-EH) at the same website. Each of these CDC-sponsored community health assessment models builds on the previous one. MAPP and PACE-EH are elaborations or special applications of APEXPH, which was an extension of the Planned Approach to Community Health (PATCH, http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/patch/), which was based largely on the PRECEDE model. During the same time, PRECEDE has evolved as PRECEDE-PROCEED to build on the experience of PATCH and the Kaiser Family Foundation experience of applying a "social reconnaissance" approach to community needs and asset assessment (Green & Kreuter, 1997), and on subsequent experience with all of the assessment and planning models and instruments. Many of the assessment procedures in PRECEDE-PROCEED are illustrated in an interactive tutorial software package and manual called Expert Methods of Planning and Organizing Within Everyone's Reach (EMPOWER, see Gold, Green, & Kreuter, 1997; see also Chaisson, 1996; Gold & Atkinson, 1999; Green, Tan, Gold, & Kreuter, 1996; Lovato, Potvin, et al., 2003). Two other CDC community grant programs that apply many of the same planning methods growing out of PRECEDE and PATCH are Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health ( http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/bb_reach/index.htm, accessed Oct 21, 2003 ) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's guidance to working with communities on environmental health issues such as toxic waste investigation programs (http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/phtn/envedu/crse-mat.asp, accessed Oct 21, 2003).

29>37. Gaps in community assets. Hawe, Noort, King, & Jordens, 1997; Kreuter & Lezin, 2002; Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, & Allen, 2001.

30>38. Community-centric vs. agency-centric planning. Hawe, 1996. For an example from mental health, see Blankertz & Hazem, 2002.

31>39. Community endorsement of agency agenda is not same as community generation of agenda. Hawe, 1996, p. 477.

32>40. “Competent community” was a term conceptualized generically by Iscoe, 1974 and Cottrell, 1976. Its applications in the health field have tended increasingly toward use of the term “community capacity” e.g., Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, & Vidal, 2001; Crisp, Swerissen, & Duckett, 2000; Kalnins, Hart, Ballantyne, Quartaro, Love, Sturis, & Pollack, 2002; Ricketts, 2001; Smith, Baugh Littlejohns, & Thompson, 2001; and more recently, “social capital” or “community capital,” e.g., Hancock, 2001; Kreuter & Lezin, 2002. For a commentary on the variations in the terms and concepts related to community capacity, see Poland, 2000.

33>41. Tools and methods for asset identification and development. Fawcett, Schultz, Carson, Renault, & Francisco, 2003; Minkler & Hancock, 2003; National Civic League, 1999, 2000; Puntenney, 2000; Sharpe, Greany, Lee, & Royce, 2000; Snow, 2001; Wang, 2003; Wang, Cash & Powers, 2000. See also endnote 36 on asset mapping, and Assets Based Community Development Institute of Northwestern University's Institute for Policy Research. ABCD's website contains tools online at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/abcd.html (accessed Oct 19, 2003). In an example of a more specific application of asset mapping, Dato, Potter, et al., 2002, describe the development of inventories and a "capacity map" for public health workforce development, identifying training resources that could be tapped by health agencies.

34>42. The notion of capacity building as being able to use the lessons of one program experience to solve other problems, rather than the once popular notion of institutionalizing the funded program as the measure of success (cf. Green, 1989), is consistent with Senge’s (1994) concept of the “learning organization.” The most thorough review of the recent history and conceptual development of community capacity building in health is the chapter by Norton, McLeroy, Burdine, Felix & Dorsey, 2002. See also the growing emphasis of schools of public health on this dimension of training and research: DeFrancesco, Bowie, Frattaroli, Bone, Walker, & Farfel, 2002.

>43. Empowerment” as gaining confidence and skills for greater independence. Fetterman, 2000; Minkler, Thompson, Bell, Rose, Redman, 2002; Thompson, Minkler, Allen, et al., 2000; Wandersman & Florin, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000. For a detailed list of Internet resources, software, handbooks and guides, and related associations on participatory and empowerment evaluation to strengthen capacity building and self-reliance, go to: http://www.stanford.edu/~davidf/empowermentevaluation.html.

>45. Dissemination value of demonstrations, as a complement to “best practices” from research. Cameron, Jolin, Walker, McDermott, & Gough, 2001; Green, 2001; Kahan & Goodstadt, 2001.

37>47. Public participation does not mean professional abdication. World Health Organization, 1983, p. 17. See also, Green & Mercer, 2001.

>48. Recognizing limits of participation of employees. Brosseau, Parker, Lazovich, Milton, & Dugan, 2002, quotes from pp. 56 & 59, respectively.

>49. Recognizing limits of participation of employers. Lazovich, Parker, Brosseau, Milton, & Dugan, 2002.

38>50. Major print sources on health needs and asset assessments. Gilmore & Campbell, 2003; Halverson & Mays, 2001; Lee, 2001; Melnick, 2001; Petersen & Alexander, 2001; Teutsch & Churchill, 2000. This website will continue to add World Wide Web links to other sources.

39>51. Need to supplement routinely collected data with tailored data. Hawe, 1996.

40>53. North Karelia Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Project. Puska, Variainen, Tuomilehto, Salomaa, & Nissinen, 1998; Vartiainen, Jousilahti, Alfthan, Sundvall, Pietinen, & Puska, 2000. See contrast for the neighboring area of Russia: Laatikainen, Delong, Pokusajeva, Uhanov, Vartiainen, & Puska, 2002.

41>54. Social diagnosis and situation analysis in North Karelia. P. Puska et al., 1985, p. 164.

42>55. Surveys of community decision-makers and health personnel. Ibid., p. 165.

>56. Evaluation of PATCH revealed that needs assessment phase could take up to 18 months. Goodman, Steckler, Hoover, & Schwartz, 1993.

>57. Defining and measuring community capacity. Goodman, Spears, McLeroy, Fawcett, Kegler, Parker, Smith, Sterling, & Wallerstein, 1998.

>58. Assessing community coalitions. Goodman, Wandersman, Chinman, Imm, & Morrisey, 1996.

>59. Caveats on participatory research dimensions of community planning. Goodman, 2001.

>60. CDC’s efforts to make surveillance data more usable by communities. Remington & Goodman, 1998; Teutsch & Churchill, 2000, see esp. chapters 3, 7, 11, & 12.

>61. Caveats on “best practices” research as a sole guide to interventions appropriate for communities other than those in which the research was conducted. Glasgow, Lichtenstein, & Marcus, 2003; Green, 2001.

>62. Caution against home-grown solutions that ignore “best practices” from previous research. Green & Kreuter, 2002; Halfours, Cho, Livert, & Kadushin, 2002. For searchable access to the hundreds of guidelines and recommendations for best practices documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, go to the CDC Recommends website: http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/CDCRecommends/AdvSearchV.asp (accessed Oct 19, 2003). This searchable website provides CDC Recommends: The Prevention Guidelines System, which contains up-to-date and archived guidelines and recommendations approved by the CDC for the prevention and control of disease, injuries, and disabilities.

44>63. Why are some people healthy and others not? R. G. Evans, Barer & Marmor, 1994.

45>64. Social capital as community capacity. Burdine JN, Felix MR, Wallerstein N, Abel AL, Wiltraut CJ, Musselman YJ, Stidley C., 1999; Hawe & Shiell, 2000; Kreuter & Lezin, 2002; Putnam, 2000.

47>65. Measures of the four constructs of social capital. Kreuter & Lezin, 2002; Muntaner, Lynch, & Smith, 2001.

50>68. Asset Mapping. McKnight & Kretzman, 1997. For recent updates, go to http://www.madii.org/amhome/amhome.html. See also, Painter, 2002, chapter 2, for this and other community assessment tools, periodically updated. For an application example within the context of the community engagement process, go to: http://www.cdc.gov/phppo/pce/part1.htm.

>69. The "Community Toolkit" resource. Fawcett, Francisco, Schultz, Nagy, Berkowitz, & Wolff, 2000. Maintained by the Work Group on Health Promotion and Community Development, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, at http://ctb.lsi.ukans.edu/tools/tools.htm.

53>70. Social reconnaissance method of community resource and needs assessment. Sanders, 1950. See also the adaptations for participatory planning development for CDC in the 1970s: Nix, 1977.

54>71. Later adaptations of social reconnaissance method. Nix, 1970; Nix & Seerley, 1971, 1973.

55>72. The Kaiser Foundation’s experience with the social reconnaissance method in the southern states was documented in annual reports of the Foundation (1989, 1990), in the second and third editions of this book (1991, 1999), in an article in the Council on Foundations magazine: R. M. Williams, 1990, and in a full evaluation of the program by Butler et al., 1996. Burdine, Felix, et al. (1999; 2000) have continued to refine the methods of leadership identification and other aspects of social reconnaissance, and have combined it with quality-of-life measures for a fuller social assessment. Braithwaite, Taylor, & Austin (2000), and Chavis (2001) have continued to draw on the reconnaissance experience of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Southern Strategy where they and their colleagues provided technical assistance (e.g., Mitchell, Florin, & Stevenson, 2002). It also provided some inspiration for the development and application of methods and guidelines for participatory research in Canada (Green, George, et al., 2002; McGowan & Green, 1995) and for the addition of the PROCEED components of the Precede-Proceed Model.

56>73. Emphasis on social structural and relationship issues in Social Reconnaissance method. Nix, 1977, p. 141. The Vancouver Foundation (1999) also adopted a variation of the social reconnaissance methods for social assessment and situation analysis in their community grantmaking.

>74. Coalition formation and development. Berkowitz, 2001; Braithwaite, Taylor, & Austin, 2000; Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002; Chavis, 2001; Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, & Allen, 2001; Goodman & Wandersman, 1994; Goodman, Wandersman, Chinman, Imm, & Morrisey, 1996; Green, 2000; Green, Daniel, & Novick, 2001; Green & Kreuter, 2002; Kreuter, Lezin, & Young, 2000; Hallfors, Cho, Livert, & Kadushin, 2002; Sanchez, 2000; Wolff, 2001.

>75. Applications of leadership analysis within the context of Precede-Proceed assessments include Gold, Green, & Kreuter, 1997; Howat, Cross, et al., 2001; Michielutte & Beal, 1990; Taylor, Elliott, Robinson, & Taylor, 1998; and specifically within the school context: Cottrell, Capwell, Brannan, 1995; MacDonald & Green, 2001.

>76. After reviewing their experience with a decentralized planning model, CDC concluded that the high expectations for a decentralized approach to HIV prevention community planning could be best achieved when a distinction is drawn between information-seeking tasks and decision-making tasks. They recommend that information-seeking tasks be centrally coordinated (provision of standardized data collection instruments and protocols, for example) and that decision-making tasks be decentralized. See Dearing, Larson, Randall, & Pope, 1998. This became a major debating point in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's "Fighting Back" program of grants to local communities for substance abuse prevention, in which the technical assistance providers left the communities a much greater degree of autonomy in developing their own "home-grown" interventions without insisting on some attachment to "best practices" from previous research (Green & Kreuter, 2002; Halfors, Cho, et al., 2002).

>77. Criteria and procedures for setting priorities among multiple needs. E.g., Conway, Hu, & Harrington, 1997. The same methods may apply to setting priorities on “liking” and “preferred” interventions or ways of pursuing a lifestyle or environmental change in later stages of the Precede-Proceed model, as demonstrated by McKenzie, Alcaraz, & Sallis, 1994; and by Wang, Terry, & Flynn, et al., 1979, in one of the first full-scale applications and validations of the model. Wu, 2000, applied the model to the economic analysis of insurance claims, fraudulant claims, claims-loss ratios, that would assist insurers in setting priorities for settlement of medical claims.

62>78. Nominal Group Technique. de Villiers, et al., 2003; Delbecq, 1983; Dewar, et al., 2003; Pololi, et al., 2003; C. C. Wang, et al., 2003.

64>79. Descriptions of steps in applying the Nominal Group Technique. Gilmore & Campbell, 2004, pp.[get new p#] ; see also McDermott & Sarvela, 1999, pp. 234-5.

>80. Examples of Applications of Nominal Group process within PRECEDE and participatory research. Adeyanju, O. M. (1987-88); Green, George, Daniel, Frankish, Herbert, Bowie, & O'Neill, 2003; McGowan & Green, 1995.

65>81. The Delphi Method. Linstone & Turoff, 1975. See more recent adaptations for workplace settings (Leo, 1996) and discrete choice modeling in clinical service setting (Farrar, Ryan, Ross, & Ludbrook, 2000), and for multiple community studies (Zeitlin, et al., 2003).

67>82. Steps in applying the Delphi Method. Gilmore & Campbell, 2003; http://www.carolla.com/wp-delph.htm (accessed 12.26/02), for 10 specific steps in the process. Hunnicutt, Perry-Hunnicutt, Newman, Davis, & Crawford, 1993, provide a Precede-Proceed model application of the Delphi Method in planning a campus alcohol abuse prevention program. For an argument against its use on grounds that it may be used to squeeze out citizen or lay participation in favor of experts, go to: http://www.icehouse.net/lmstuter/acf001.htm, accessed 12/26/02.

>83. Focus groups. See the boxed issue earlier in this chapter for a needs assessment example of focus group application, as well as anticipating intervention possibilities: Brosseau, Parker, Lazovich, Milton, & Dugan, 2002; Lazovich, Parker, Brosseau, Milton, & Dugan, 2002. For a comparative description of this and the other methods as applied in assessing the perceived efficacy of intervention methods, see Ayala & Elder, 2001. Our interest in this chapter, however, is primarily in the application of these methods in the earliest phase of assessing needs associated with more basic social and quality-of-life concerns. These findings from Phase 1 of PRECEDE-PROCEED will likely resurface as predisposing factors in Phase 3.

79>84. Focus group applications with PRECEDE in cystic fibrosis. Bartholomew, Seilheimer, Parcel, Spinelli, & Pumariega, 1989; Bartholomew, Czyzewski, Swank, McCormick, & Parcel, 2000.

69>85. Focus group applications with PRECEDE in breast cancer and African-American wormen. Danigelis, Nicholas, Roberson, Worden, Flynn, Dorwaldt, Ashley, Skelly, & Mickey, 1995; Eng, 1993; Paskett, Tatum, et al., 1999; Taylor, Taplin, et al., 1994.

>86. Focus group applications with PRECEDE in nutrition, adolescent health, and other issues. Balch, Loughrey, et al., 1997; Cargo, Grams, et al., 2003; Doyle, & Feldman, 1997; Mirand, Beehler, et al., 2003; Morris, Linnan, & Meador, 2003; Oliver-Vazquez, Sanchez-Ayendez, et al., 2002; Reed, 1996; Reed, Meeks, Nguyen, Cross, & Garrison, 1998; Taylor, Coovadia, et al., 1999.

72>87. Cultural context. Airhihenbuwa, 1995; Airhihenbuwa, Kamanyika, & Lowe, 1995; Airhihenbuwa, Kumanyika, Agurs, Lowe, Saunders, & Morssink, 1996. Airhihenbuwa builds on the predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors in PRECEDE-PROCEED "in accounting for perceptions, resources/enablers, and significant others in health behavior outcome which for me occurs within a broader social context with cultural interpretations and meanings” (Personal communication, Jan. 4, 2002).

73>88. Steps in focus group application. Krueger, & Casey, 2000. See also Gilmore & Campbell, 2004. Mwanga, Mugashe, & Aagaard-Hansen, 1998, outline a procedure for video-recorded focus group discussion from a case study on schistosomiases in Magu, Tanzania.

75>89. Central intercept or location interviews. Lefebvre, Doner, Johnston, Loughrey, Balch, & Sutton, 1995.

76>90. Surveys. Fink, 2002; Fowler, 2001. Especially relevant are the growing numbers of participatory survey research projects, creating collaborative roles for representatives of community-based organizations and service providers, as demonstrated, e.g., by Schultz et al., 1998.

Use of surveys in social diagnoses in applications of the Precede-Proceed Model:

77>91. Quality-of-life surveys related to chronic diseases. Zuckerman, Guerra, et al., 1996.

78>92. Health-related quality-of-life surveys in occupational settings. Bailey, Rukholm, et al., 1994; Bertera, 1990a,b; 1993.

79>93. Quality-of-life surveys related to cystic fibrosis. Bartholomew, Seilheimer, Parcel, Spinelli, & Pumariega, 1989; Bartholomew, Czyzewski, Swank, McCormick, & Parcel, 2000.

80>94. Surveys of staff nurses. Berland, Whyte, & Maxwell, 1995; Cheng, DeWitt, Savageau, & O’connor, 1999.

82>95. Surveys on nutrition-related issues. Campbell, Demark-Wahnefried, Symons, Kalsbeek, Dodds, Cowan, Jackson, Motsinger, Hoben, Lashley, Demissie, & McClelland, 1999; Doyle & Feldman, 1997.

>96. Federal health surveys incorporating quality-of-life measures. Green, Wilson, & Bauer, 1992; Rootman, 1998. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a common survey conducted now by all 50 states, with coordination from CDC, has increasingly incorporated health-related quality-of-life and social health indicators in the telephone surveys (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000; and http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/brfss/ or http://www.cdc.gov/hrqol, accessed 12/31/02). See also community-level indicators, Karanek, Sockwell, Jia, CDC, 2000). These measures have been used also at the community level, e.g., in Canada, by Ounpuu, Kreuger, Vermeulen, & Chambers, 2000, and at the county level, e.g., http://www.oc.ca.gov/hca/public/healthbeat/2001/2001_07.htm (accessed Oct 25, 2003).

>97. Public service data. E.g., National Civic League, 1999, 2000; Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University Survey Project, 1996.

>98. Participation in interpretation of data. Flynn, 1995; Green & Mercer, 2001; Minkler & Hancock, 2003; Wang, 2003.

>99. Data triangulation. E.g., Thorpe, & Loo, 2003; Wachtler, Troein, 2003. For PRECEDE examples, see Goodson, Gottlieb, & Radcliffe, 1999; Keintz, Rimer, et al., 1988; Morris, Linnan, & Meador, 2003; Wang, Terry, et al., 1979.

>100. Linking local assessment to theory and evidence from research literature. Daniel & Green, 1995.

>101. Incomplete linking of community assessment with program planning decisions. Daniel, Green, Marion, Gamble, Herbert, Hertzman, & Sheps, 1999.

>102. Lessons for use of theory and "best practices" literature vis a vis participation in planning. Daniel, 1997. See abstract at http://www.ihpr.ubc.ca. These recommendations are discussed also in Daniel & Green, 1999.

>103. Local skepticism about appropriateness of “best practices” from research for their community. Green, 2001.

>104. Growing science of aligning theory and research on “best practices” to population and community characteristics. E.g., Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, & Gottlieb, 2001; Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 1999; Fiore, Bailey, Cohen, et al. 2000; Friede, O’Carroll, Nicola, Oberle, & Teutsch, 1997 (updated regularly on CDC Recommends website: http://www.cdc.gov); Gilbert & Sawyer, 1995; Gregory, S., 2002; Harris, Zaza, & Teutsch, 2003; International Union for Health Promotion and Education, 1999; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000a; Wandersman, Imm, Chinman, & Kaftarian, 2000; World Health Organization, 2001; 2002, Chap. 5 (see also www.who.int/evidence for a regular update of CHOICE, Choosing Interventions that are Cost Effrective); Zasa, Sleet, Thompson, Sosin, Bolen, & Task Force on Community Preventive Services, 2001. For an alternative approach to the synthesis of quantitative evidence in arriving at “what works” for neighborhoods and communities, see Schorr, 1997.

90>105. Exercises. We suggest that these exercises be carried out on a real population accessible to the student or practitioner, in consultation with members of that population and service providers serving that population. If this is impracticable, the exercises can be applied to a more distant population using published census data, vital statistics, and data from surveys and other sources on the World Wide Web.

>106. For a three-step approach to building a Precede-Proceed logic model, see Renger & Titcomb, 2002.

Fig. 2-2. The public's lens focuses on the locally relevant, subjective aspects of health, textured by life experiences; the scientific lens views health in universalistic, highly generalizable, objective terms, and therefore is less locally relevant and subjectively meaningful to the people whose health is in question. Professionals can help bridge these two views, making meaning of science to the patient or local population, and making scientific sense of their subjective view. [Green & Kreuter, 3rd edition, p. 57, based on work with the Yukon Bureau of Statistics, copyright, McGraw-Hill, 1999].

Fig. 2-3. Finding the common ground among the public's perception of needs, the health sector's or health scientists' assessments., and the political assessment of feasibility, resources, and policies means bringing these three circles into closer alignment to enlarge the area (A) for action.

Needs Assessment:

Cohen, J.E., de Guia, N.A., Ashley, M.J., Ferrence, R., Northrup, D.A., Studlar D.T. (2002). Predictors of Canadian legislators' support for tobacco control policies. Social Science & Medicine 55: 1069-1076.

Cohen JE, de Guia NA, Ashley MJ, Ferrence R, Studlar DT, Northrup DA. (2001). Predictors of Canadian legislators' support for public health policy interventions. Canadian Journal of Public Health 92: 188-189.

Goeppinger, J., & Lorig, K. (2001). What do we know about what works: Patient education theories and models. In K. Lorig Patient Education: A Practical Aproach. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Lorig KR, Laurent DD, Deyo RA, Marnell ME, Minor MA, Ritter PL. Can a back pain e-mail discussion group improve health status and lower health care costs? A randomized study. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162: 792-796, 2002.

13. > 80. McGowan, P. & Green, L.W. (1995). "Arthritis self-management in native populations of British Columbia: An application of health promotion and participatory research principles in chronic disease control," Canadian Journal of Aging 14, 201-12.

13. > 20. Pahkala, K., Kivela, S.L., & Laippala, P. (1991). Relationships between social and health factors and major depression in old age in a multivariate analysis,” Nordisk Psykiatrisk Tidsskrift 45: 299-307.

Studlar, D. T. (2002). Tobacco Control: Comparative Politics in the United States and Canada. New York: Broadview.

2-14. Cramer, J. A. Quality of life and compliance. In M.R. Trimble and W.E. Dodson (Eds.), Epilepsy and Quality of Life. New York: Raven Press, Chap. 4, pp. 49-63.

Lorig, K. R., Laurent, D.D., Deyo, R.A., Marnell, M.E., Minor, M.A., Ritter, P.L. (2002). Can a back pain e-mail discussion group improve health status and lower health care costs? A randomized study. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162: 792-796.

2-15. Geiger, H. J. (2002). "Community-Oriented Primary Care: A path to community development. American Journal of Public Health 92, 1713-1716.

Lorig, K. R., Ritter, P. L., Stewart, A.L., Sobel, D.S., Brown, B.W., Bandura, A., Gonzalez, V.M., Laurent, D.D., Holman, H.R. (2001). Chronic disease self-management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes. Medical Care, 39:1217-1223. View Abstract.

2-16. Fries, J. F., & Crapo, L. M. (1981). Vitality and aging. San Francisco, W.H. Freeman.

Prohaska, T. R., & Lorig, K. (2001). What do we know about what works? The role of theory in patient education. In K. Lorig, Patient Education: A Practical Approach. 3rd ed. (pp. 21-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ware, J. E. & Dosinski, M. (2001). Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: a response. Quality of Life Research 10(5): 405-13; discussion 415-20.

2-17.