Toxic Stress and Child Hunger Over the Life Course: Three Case Studies

The causes and contexts of food insecurity among children in the U.S. are poorly understood because the prevalence of food insecurity at the child level is low compared to the prevalence of household food insecurity. In addition, caregivers may be reluctant to admit their children may not be getting enough food due to shame or fear they might lose custody of their children. Based on our ongoing qualitative research with mothers of young children, we suggest that food security among children is related to adverse childhood experiences of caregivers. This translates into poor mental and physical health in adolescence and adulthood, which can lead to inability to secure and maintain meaningful employment that pays a living wage. In this paper we propose that researchers shift the framework for understanding food insecurity in the United States to adopt a life course approach. This demands we pay greater attention to the lifelong consequences of exposure to trauma or toxic stress—exposure to violence, rape, abuse and neglect, and housing, food, and other forms of deprivation—during childhood. We then describe three case studies of women from our ongoing study to describe a variety of toxic stress exposures and how they have an impact on a woman’s earning potential, her mental health, and attitudes toward raising children. Each woman describes her exposure to violence and deprivation as a child and adolescent, describes experiences with child hunger, and explains how her experiences have shaped her ability to nourish her children. We describe ways in which we can shift the nature of research investigations on food insecurity, and provide recommendations for policy-oriented solutions regarding income support programs, early intervention programs, child and adult mental health services, and violence prevention programs.

Planning and implementation efficacy as a determinant of health risk communication outcomes: Case studies of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)

This study was conducted under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Risk Communication and Education of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs (CCEHRP) to determine how Public Health Service (PHS) agencies are communicating information about health risk, what factors contributed to effective communication efforts, and what specific principles, strategies, and practices best promote more effective health risk communication outcomes.^ Member agencies of the Subcommittee submitted examples of health risk communication activities or decisions they perceived to be effective and some examples of cases they thought had not been as effective as desired. Of the 10 case studies received, 7 were submitted as examples of effective health risk communication, and 3, as examples of less effective communication.^ Information contained in the 10 case studies describing the respective agencies' health risk communication strategies and practices was compared with EPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication, since similar rules were not found in any PHS agency. EPA's rules are: (1) Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. (2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. (3) Listen to the public's specific concerns. (4) Be honest, frank, and open. (5) Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. (6) Meet the needs of the media. (7) Speak clearly and with compassion.^ On the basis of case studies analysis, the Subcommittee, in their attempts to design and implement effective health risk communication campaigns, identified a number of areas for improvement among the agencies. First, PHS agencies should consider developing a focus specific to health risk communication (i.e., office or specialty resource). Second, create a set of generally accepted practices and guidelines for effective implementation and evaluation of PHS health risk communication activities and products. Third, organize interagency initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and visibility of health risk communication issues and trends within and between PHS agencies.^ PHS agencies identified some specific implementation strategies the CCEHRP might consider pursuing to address the major recommendations. Implementation strategies common to PHS agencies emerged in the following five areas: (1) program development, (2) building partnerships, (3) developing training, (4) expanding information technologies, and (5) conducting research and evaluation. ^

Academic medical centers: A framework for strategic repositioning

This study sought to understand the elements affecting the success or failure of strategic repositioning efforts by academic medical centers (AMC). The research question was: What specific elements in the process appear to be most important in determining the success or failure of an AMC.s strategic repositioning? Where success is based on the longterm sustainability of the new position.^ "An organization's strategic position is its perceptual location relative to others" (Gershon, 2003). Hence, strategic repositioning represents a shift from one strategic position within an environment to another (H. Mintzberg, 1987a). A deteriorating value proposition coupled with an unsustainable national health care financing system is forcing AMCs to change their strategic position. Where the value proposition is defined as the health outcome per dollar spent. ^ AMCs are of foundational importance to our health care system. They educate our new physicians, generate significant scientific breakthroughs, and care for our most difficult patients. Yet, their strategic, financial and business acumen leaves them particularly vulnerable in a changing environment. ^ After a literature review revealed limited writing on this subject, the research question was addressed using three separate but parallel exploratory case study inquiries of AMCs that recently underwent a strategic repositioning. Participating in the case studies were the Baylor College of Medicine, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, and the University of Texas Medical Branch.^ Each case study consisted of two major research segments; a thorough documentation review followed by semi-structured interviews of selected members of their governance board, executive and faculty leadership teams. While each case study.s circumstances varied, their response to the research question, as extracted through thematic coding and analysis of the interviews, had a high degree of commonality.^ The results identified managing the strategic risk surrounding the repositioning and leadership accountability as the two foundational elements of success or failure. Metrics and communication were important process elements. They both play a major role in managing the strategic repositioning risk communication loop. Sustainability, the final element, was the outcome sought.^ Factors leading to strategic repositioning included both internal and external pressures and were primarily financial or mission based. Timing was an important consideration as was the selection of the strategic repositioning endpoint.^ In conclusion, a framework for the strategic repositioning of AMCs was offered that integrates the findings of this study; the elements of success, the factors leading to strategic repositioning, and the risk communication loop. ^