159297
Planning for an urban community health survey - Insights from focus groups in Newark, NJ
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
P. A. Thomas, MD
,
New Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ
D. Edwards, MHS, CSW
,
Newark Department of Health and Human Services, Newark, NJ
M. McGowan, MPH, MA, HO
,
Newark Department of Health and Human Services, Newark, NJ
M. Passannante, PhD
,
New Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ
D. M. Rosenblum, PhD
,
Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
B. K. Holland, PhD, MPH
,
New Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ
S. Houston
,
Houston & Associates, East Orange, NJ
D. R. Brown, PhD
,
Institute for the Elimination of Health Disparities, UMDNJ - SPH, Newark, NJ
Background: Public Health objectives for 2010 have been set nationally and statewide. Data are needed on public health practices for urban areas to plan effective interventions and evaluate programs relative to 2010 goals. Objective: To determine the understanding of specific BRFSS questions, design questions pertinent for health care access, and explore the acceptability of a telephone survey. Methods: Five 2-hour focus groups of 54 (8-15 per group) persons represented: African American men and women, Hispanic men and women (conducted in Spanish), and youth. Participants were recruited through churches and community centers. BRFSS questions on cancer screening and confidentiality statements were tested. Access to care and acceptability of telephone survey were discussed. Results: Participants considered explanations of tests (e.g. Pap) too ‘wordy'. Spanish groups had difficulty understanding colorectal cancer screening questions. The groups suggested ways to reword some survey questions in English and Spanish. All participants reported significant barriers to receiving health care. Many believe that they do not receive high quality care. Most participants preferred a face-to-face survey. After discussion about the survey's purpose, a telephone survey was considered acceptable. Recommendations were made to educate Newark residents about the purpose and value of a survey in advance to increase participation. Conclusion: Based on focus group findings a Newark BRFSS survey by telephone can work if: 1) cancer screening questions are reworded and tested particularly in Spanish, 2) questions about barriers to care and solutions are added, and 3) there is advance education/marketing about the survey to improve response rates.
Learning Objectives: 1. Understanding the role of focus groups in assessing community based opinions
2. Understanding possible biases in current BRFSS methodology
3. Learn about the role of education/marketing of a telephone survey in an urban community
Keywords: Epidemiology, Survey
Presenting author's disclosure statement:Any relevant financial relationships? No Any institutionally-contracted trials related to this submission?
I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines,
and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed
in my presentation.
|