Perceptions of institutional support of community -based participatory research within prevention research centers

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the future of health care states that the focus on health needs to shift to the management and prevention of chronic illnesses and that academic health centers (AHCs) should play an active role in this process through community partnerships (IOM, 2002). Grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Research Centers (PRC) across the county represent a transition toward more proactively seeking out community partnerships to better design and disseminate health promotion programs (Green, 2001). ^ The focus of the PRCs is to conduct rigorous, community-based, prevention research, to seek outcomes applicable to public health programs and policies. The PRCs work is to create and foster partnerships among public health and community organizations, to address health promotion and disease prevention issues (CDC, 2003). ^ The W.K. Kellogg Foundation defines CBPR as "a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health." ^ In 1995, CDC asked the IOM to review the PRC program to examine the extent to which the program is providing the public health community with strategies to address public health problems in disease prevention and health promotion (IOM, 1997). No comprehensive evaluation n of the individual PRCs had ever been done (IOM, 1997). ^ The CDC was interested in understanding how it could better support the PRC program through improved management and oversight to influence the program's success. The CDC only represents one of the entities that influence the success of a PRC. Another key entity to consider is the support of and influence of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside. Using evaluation criteria similar to those that were developed by the IOM, this study examined how aspects of structural capacity of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside are perceived to influence PRC community-based research activities. ^

A citizen's guide to the Community mental health centers act /

Mode of access: Internet.

Community mental health centers construction grant program policy and procedures manual.

Mode of access: Internet.

Compilation of selected public health laws : including particularly the Public Health Service Act, the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Mode of access: Internet.

A cost-effectiveness methodology for community mental health centers : development and pilot test /

Mode of access: Internet.

Community mental health centers : perspectives of the seventies : an annotated bibliography /

Mode of access: Internet.

Critical performance measures for prepayment : community and migrant health centers.

"Prepared under contract to Bureau of Health Care Delivery and Assistance, contract no. 240-08-0501."

Community day centers for the mentally retarded in Illinois.

Issued as proceedings of a meeting of Illinois Advisory Committee for Community Mental Health Grants.

The Illinois state plans, fiscal year ... for the construction of facilities for the mentally retarded (Title I-C) and community mental health centers (Title II) Public Law 88-164.

Title varies slightly.

Community food preservation centers /

"A revision and enlargement of the booklet on Community canning centers distributed by the Bureau of Home Economics for many years"--P. 3.

A working manual of third party funding sources for community mental health centers /

Originally issued 1978.

Compilation of selected public health laws: including particularly the Public health service act, the Clean air act, the Solid waste disposal act, the Mental retardation facilities and community mental health centers construction act, and the Narcotic addict rehabilitation act, the Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act, the Federal hazardous substances act, and the fair packaging and labeling act.

Prepared for the use of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Referring heroin users from compulsory detoxification centers to community methadone maintenance treatment: a comparison of three models.

BACKGROUND: Both compulsory detoxification treatment and community-based methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) exist for heroin addicts in China. We aim to examine the effectiveness of three intervention models for referring heroin addicts released from compulsory detoxification centers to community methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) clinics in Dehong prefecture, Yunnan province, China. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental study design, three different referral models were assigned to four detoxification centers. Heroin addicts were enrolled based on their fulfillment to eligibility criteria and provision of informed consent. Two months prior to their release, information on demographic characteristics, history of heroin use, and prior participation in intervention programs was collected via a survey, and blood samples were obtained for HIV testing. All subjects were followed for six months after release from detoxification centers. Multi-level logistic regression analysis was used to examine factors predicting successful referrals to MMT clinics. RESULTS: Of the 226 participants who were released and followed, 9.7% were successfully referred to MMT(16.2% of HIV-positive participants and 7.0% of HIV-negative participants). A higher proportion of successful referrals was observed among participants who received both referral cards and MMT treatment while still in detoxification centers (25.8%) as compared to those who received both referral cards and police-assisted MMT enrollment (5.4%) and those who received referral cards only (0%). Furthermore, those who received referral cards and MMT treatment while still in detoxification had increased odds of successful referral to an MMT clinic (adjusted OR = 1.2, CI = 1.1-1.3). Having participated in an MMT program prior to detention (OR = 1.5, CI = 1.3-1.6) was the only baseline covariate associated with increased odds of successful referral. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that providing MMT within detoxification centers promotes successful referral of heroin addicts to community-based MMT upon their release.