The California Wellness Foundation's Health Improvement Initiative: Evaluation findings and lessons learned

American Journal of Health Promotion

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 286-296

  Cheadle, Allen ^a   Senter, Sandra ^b   Procello, Alicia ^c   Pearson, David ^b   Nelson, Gary D ^d   Greenwald, Howard P ^e   Beery, William L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b Group Health Community Foundation   (United States)

^c California Wellness Foundation   (United States)

^d Healthcare Georgia Foundation Inc   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Broad Determinants of Health; Community level Coalitions; Community level Systems Change; Multiple Strategies; Prevention Research; Program Evaluation; Program Implementation; Qualitative Case Study

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMMUNITY CARE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; UNITED STATES; WELLBEING;

EID: 14744283327     PISSN: 08901171     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4278/0890-1171-19.4.286     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Hasnain-Wynia R. Overview of the community care network demonstration program and its evaluation. Med Care Res and Rev. 2003; 60(suppl 4):5S-16S.
2. Conrad DA, Cave SH, Lucas M, et al. Community care networks: Linking vision to outcomes for community health improvement. Med Care Res and Rev. 2003;60(suppl 4):95S-129S.
3. Partnership for the Public's Health. Available at: http://www. partnershipph.org. Accessed January 5, 2005.
4. Tarlov AR, Kehrer BH, Hall DP, et al. Foundation work: the health promotion program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Am J Health Promot. 1987;2:74-80.
5. Farquar JW, Fortman SP, Flora JA, et al. Effects of community-wide education on cardiovascular disease risk factors: the Stanford five-city project. JAMA. 1990;264:359-365.
6. Green LW. PATCH: CDC's planned approach to community health: an application of PRECEED and an inspiration for PROCEED. J Health Educ. 1992;23:140-147.
7. COMMIT Research Group. Community intervention trial for smoking cessation (COMMIT): I. Cohort results from a four-year community intervention. Am J Pub Health. 1995; 85:183-192.
8. Wallerstein N. Power between evaluator and community: research relationships within New Mexico's healthier communities. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:39-53.
9. Center for Civic Partnerships. Enhancing community capacity. Proceedings of the California Healthy Cities and Communities Annual Conference, Center for Civic Partnership; April 2000; San Diego, Calif.
10. El-Askari G, Freestone J, Irizarry C, et al. The Healthy Neighborhoods Project: a local health department's role in catalyzing community development. Health Educ Behav. 1998; 25:146-159.
11. Lasker RD, Weiss ES. Broadening participation in community problem solving: a multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. J Urban Health, Bull N Y Acad Med. 2003;80:14-60.
12. Alter C, Hage J. Organizations Working Together. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications Inc; 1993.
13. Butterfoss FD, Goodman RM, Wandersman A. Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion. Health Educ Res. 1993;8: 315-330.
14. Chavis DM. The paradoxes and promise of community coalitions. Am J Community Psychol. 2001;29:309-320.
15. Mattesich PW, Murray-Close M, Monsey BR. Collaboration: What Makes It Work? 2nd ed. St. Paul, Minn: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation; 2001.
16. Wolff T. A practitioner's guide to successful coalitions. Am J Community Psychol. 2001;29: 173-191.
17. Minkler M, Frantz S, Wechsler R. Social support and social action organizing in a "grey ghetto": the Tenderloin experience. Int Q Community Health Educ. 1982;3:3-15.
18. Minkler M, Wallerstein N. Improving health through community' organization and community building. In: Glanr K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. 2nd ed. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 1997:241-269.
19. Kanter RM. Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harvard Business Rev. 1994; July-August:96-108.
20. Merzel C, D'Afflitti JD. Reconsidering community-based health promotion: promise, performance, and potential. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:557-574.
21. Kreuter M, Lezin NL, Young LA. Evaluating community-based mechanisms: implications for practitioners. Health Promot Pract. 2000;1: 49-63.
22. Hallfors D, Cho H, Livert D, Kadushin C. Fighting back against substance abuse: are community coalitions winning? Am J Prev Med. 2002;23:237-245.
23. Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1994.
24. Cheadle A, Beery WL, Greenwald HP, et al. Evaluating The California Wellness Foundation's Health Improvement Initiative: a logic model approach. Health Promot Pract. 2003;4: 146-156.
25. QSR NUD*IST. Version 4. Melbourne, Australia: Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd. 1997.
26. Kreuter M, Lezin NL, Young LA. Evaluating community-based mechanisms: implications for practitioners. Health Promot Pract. 2000;1: 49-63.
27. Chavis DM. The paradoxes and promise of community coalitions. Am J Community Psychol. 2001;29:309-320.
28. Hertzman C, Frank J, Evans RG. Heterogeneities in health status and the determinants of population health. In: Evans RG, Barer ML, Marmor TR, eds. Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? New York, NY: Aline de Gruyter; 1994:67-92.
29. Anderson LM, Scrimshaw SC, Fullilove MT, et al. The Community Guide's model for linking the social environment to health. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24(3S):12-20.
30. Casey Foundation. Residents Engaged in Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods. Baltimore, Md: Annie E. Casey Foundation; 2003.
31. Cheadle A, Beery W, Wagner E, et al. Conference report: community-based health promotion: state of the art and recommendations for the future. Am J Prev Med. 1997;13:240-243.