176310 Conceptual framework for communication: Schools and communities working together for healthier children

Wednesday, October 29, 2008: 11:00 AM

Allison Koonce, MSE, CHES , Office of Health Promotion, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Topeka, KS
Brandon Skidmore, BS , Office of Health Promotion, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Topeka, KS
Amy Chesser, PhD, MA , Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, KS
Lisa Cornwell, RN, BSHRM , USD 349 Stafford Schools, Stafford, KS
Suzanne R. Hawley, PhD, MPH , Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, KS
Elizabeth Ablah, PhD, MPH , Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, KS
Ghazala Perveen, MBBS, PhD, MPH , Office of Health Promotion, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Topeka, KS
Paula Marmet, MS, RD, LD , Office of Health Promotion, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Topeka, KS
Purpose: To improve communication between school districts and communities, the Kansas Coordinated School Health program developed the Conceptual Framework for Communication by integrating the Coordinates School Health (CSH) Model with the Chronic Care Model. The Conceptual Framework and associated guide illustrate community partner impact on the eight CSH components and how schools can identify community resources.

Methods: The Conceptual Framework and guide were piloted in 9 school districts (implementation group). 5 additional school districts used a standard CSH model and guide (control group). All districts were scored against five study objectives:

1. Total number of community partners identified

2. Total number of community resources identified

3. Total number of SMART objectives created

4. Total number of evaluation strategies created

5. Total number of grant strategies developed.

Results: On average, the implementation group:

1. Identified 13.3 community partners, compared to 8.2 identified by the control group

2. Identified more than double the community resources (10.3 vs. 5.0)

3. Created 8.4 SMART objectives, compared to 1.0 for the control group

4. Created more than twice the evaluation methods (8.7 vs. 3.6)

5. Developed more than double the grant strategies (26.8 vs. 11.6).

Conclusions: The Conceptual Framework for Communication provides school districts with the necessary guidance to develop more program strategies and identify a larger number of community partners and resources to support local efforts. While future study is required to determine long-term impact, but the short-term results satisfy federal recommendations for local CSH projects to develop community ownership of health improvement.

Learning Objectives:
1. Articulate a broad working definition for the 8 components of the coordinated school health model. 2. Identify the nature and purpose of modifications made to the coordinated school health model for the Conceptual Framework for Communication. 3. List five evaluation and assessment objectives used to determine the effectiveness of the Conceptual Framework for Communication at involving community partners in coordinated school health.

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I participated in project development and data analysis.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

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.

See more of: Schools and Communities Working Together in School Health and Emergency Preparedness
See more of: School Health Education and Services