Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP · 2025
Disability Inclusion in Local Public Health Community Health Assessments and Community Health Improvement Plans.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leslie Haleigh, Beatty Kate, Rowe Dawn, Quade Thomas, Havrda Kailee, Balio Casey P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To quantify and describe disability inclusion in community health assessments (CHAs) and community health improvement plans (CHIPs) at the local health department (LHD) level.
METHODS: This study uses a cross-sectional design of the 2019 NACCHO Profile and Public Health Accreditation Board-accredited LHD CHAs and CHIPs to quantify and describe disability inclusion.
RESULTS: Less than 25% of LHDs included a CHIP goal, objective, or activity that specifically includes people with disabilities. Having a disability partner as part of CHA and CHIP steering committees was associated with greater odds of including a CHIP goal, objective, or activity that includes people with disabilities (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.2, P =<.01) as were CHAs and CHIPs conducted by mixed groups of community partners (but not an official coalition) (aOR = 5.04, P = .005).
CONCLUSIONS: Given the role of CHAs and CHIPs in informing the work of public health, being disability inclusive in such materials is likely to reflect the activities of LHDs. However, disability inclusion and representation in CHAs and CHIPs are limited. These findings may help inform CHA and CHIP development processes and tools to increase disability inclusion efforts in public health.
METHODS: This study uses a cross-sectional design of the 2019 NACCHO Profile and Public Health Accreditation Board-accredited LHD CHAs and CHIPs to quantify and describe disability inclusion.
RESULTS: Less than 25% of LHDs included a CHIP goal, objective, or activity that specifically includes people with disabilities. Having a disability partner as part of CHA and CHIP steering committees was associated with greater odds of including a CHIP goal, objective, or activity that includes people with disabilities (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.2, P =<.01) as were CHAs and CHIPs conducted by mixed groups of community partners (but not an official coalition) (aOR = 5.04, P = .005).
CONCLUSIONS: Given the role of CHAs and CHIPs in informing the work of public health, being disability inclusive in such materials is likely to reflect the activities of LHDs. However, disability inclusion and representation in CHAs and CHIPs are limited. These findings may help inform CHA and CHIP development processes and tools to increase disability inclusion efforts in public health.