Modeling a health promotion campaign process

In this work we will present a model that describes how the number of healthy and unhealthy subjects that belong to a cohort, changes through time when there are occurrences of health promotion campaigns aiming to change the undesirable behavior. This model also includes immigration and emigration components for each group and a component taking into account when a subject that used to perform a healthy behavior changes to perform the unhealthy behavior. We will express the model in terms of a bivariate probability generating function and in addition we will simulate the model. ^ An illustrative example on how to apply the model to the promotion of condom use among adolescents will be created and we will use it to compare the results obtained from the simulations and the results obtained by the probability generating function. ^

Get ur 60: A social marketing campaign to promote and facilitate physical activity among Central Texas middle school students

If allowed to continue unabated, the obesity epidemic may lead to the first decline in life expectancy in the developed world (Olshansky et al., 2005). Similar to the relationship between smoking habits in youth and adulthood, obesogenic dietary and physical activity habits in childhood may persist into adulthood (Kelder et al., 2002). Teaching children how to establish healthy eating habits and activity levels, as well as providing them the necessary resources to internalize and maintain these behaviors, may be the key to curbing this epidemic.^ A school-based obesity prevention approach is advantageous for many reasons including exposure to large captive audiences, reduced costs of sustainability and long-term maintenance, and generalizability of models and results across multiple populations. The effectiveness of school-based programs has been researched over the past 20 years, with promising results.^ Social marketing is a program-planning process that “facilitates the acceptance, rejection, modification, abandonment, or maintenance of particular behaviors” (Grier & Bryant, 2005). Social marketing has been shown to be effective in a variety of public health applications including improving diet, increasing physical activity, and preventing substance abuse. It is hypothesized that social marketing could further enhance the effectiveness of the Coordinated Approach To Child Health (CATCH) Central Texas Middle School Project, a school-based obesity prevention program.^ The development, implementation, and initial evaluation of the get ur 60 campaign, to promote the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended sixty minutes of daily activity, is described in this paper. Various components of the get ur 60 campaign were assessed to evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign during the first semester of implementation. At the end of the spring semester focus groups were held to collect student reactions to the first semester of the get ur 60 campaign.^ The initial results from the first semester of get ur 60 have demonstrated that the campaign as designed was feasible to implement, accepted at all intervention schools, and resulted in a measure of success. ^

Campaign contributions to congressional candidates by the healthcare sector from 1990 to 2008

Stakeholder groups with special interests as donors to finance congressional campaigns have been a controversial issue in the United Sates. While previous studies concentrated on whether a connection existed between the campaign contributions provided by stakeholder groups and the voting behavior of congressional members, there is little evidence to show the trend of allocation of their campaign contributions to their favorite candidates during the elections. This issue has become increasingly important in the health sector since the health care reform bill was passed in early 2010.^ This study examined the long-term trend of campaign contributions offered by various top healthcare stakeholder groups to particular political parties (i.e. Democrat and Republican). The main focus of this paper was to observe and describe the financial donations provided by these healthcare stakeholder groups in the congressional election cycles from 1990 to 2008 in order to obtain an overview of their patterns of campaign contributions. Their contributing behaviors were characterized based on the campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Specifically, I answered the questions: (1) to which political party did specific healthcare stakeholder groups give money and (2) what was the pattern of their campaign contributions from 1990 to 2008?^ The findings of my study revealed that the healthcare stakeholder groups had different political party preferences and partisanship orientations regarding the Democratic or Republican Party. These differences were obvious throughout the election cycles from 1990 to 2008 and their distinct patterns of financial contribution were evident across industries in the health sector as well. Among all the healthcare stakeholder groups in this study, physicians were the top contributors in the congressional election. The pharmaceutical industry was the only group where the majority of contribution funds were allocated to Republicans in every election period studied. This study found that no interest group has succeeded in electing the preferred congressional candidate by giving the majority of its financial support to the winning party in every election. Chiropractors, hospitals/nursing homes, and health services/HMOs performed better than other healthcare stakeholder groups by supporting the electoral winner 8 out of 9 election cycles.^

A practice-based culminating experience: Writing a HRSA grant application with Texas Organ Sharing Alliance for public education efforts to increase solid organ donation

In November 2010, nearly 110,000 people in the United States were waiting for organs for transplantation. Despite the fact that the organ donor registration rate has doubled in the last year, Texas has the lowest registration rate in the nation. Due to the need for improved registration rates in Texas, this practice-based culminating experience was to write an application for federal funding for the central Texas organ procurement organization, Texas Organ Sharing Alliance. The culminating experience has two levels of significance for public health – (1) to engage in an activity to promote organ donation registration, and (2) to provide professional experience in grant writing. ^ The process began with a literature review. The review was to identify successful intervention activities in motivating organ donation registration that could be used in intervention design for the grant application. Conclusions derived from the literature review included (1) the need to specifically encourage family discussions, (2) religious and community leaders can be leveraged to facilitate organ donation conversations in families, (3) communication content must be culturally sensitive and (4) ethnic disparities in transplantation must be acknowledged and discussed.^ Post the literature review; the experience followed a five step process of developing the grant application. The steps included securing permission to proceed, assembling a project team, creation of a project plan and timeline, writing each element of the grant application including the design of proposed intervention activities, and completion of the federal grant application. ^ After the grant application was written, an evaluation of the grant writing process was conducted. Opportunities for improvement were identified. The first opportunity was the need for better timeline management to allow for review of the application by an independent party, iterative development of the budget proposal, and development of collaborative partnerships. Another improvement opportunity was the management of conflict regarding the design of the intervention that stemmed from marketing versus evidence-based approaches. The most important improvement opportunity was the need to develop a more exhaustive evaluation plan.^ Eight supplementary files are attached to appendices: Feasibility Discussion in Appendix 1, Grant Guidance and Workshop Notes in Appendix 2, Presentation to Texas Organ Sharing Alliance in Appendix 3, Team Recruitment Presentation in Appendix 5, Grant Project Narrative in Appendix 7, Federal Application Form in Appendix 8, and Budget Workbook with Budget Narrative in Appendix 9.^