Abstract
Aims
This study of a levy‐voter funded public health initiative program (1) identifies capacity‐building concerns, (2) summarizes those concerns at the community‐based organization (CBO) ...level, and (3) documents the desired CBO capacity‐building outcome.
Participants
Nineteen participants from nine CBOs were included, representing 95% of participants (19/20) and 90% of CBOs (9/10) from the initiative's program population.
Methods
Interviews were conducted. A focus group validated data. Demographic surveys were completed.
Methodology and Analysis
Data were analyzed using demographic and inductive content analyses. Fifteen capacity‐building unexpected concerns were identified. Participants from eight out of nine (88.8%) CBOs shared at least ten concerns. Seven CBO capacity‐building outcomes were identified.
Results
Capacity‐building providers helped participants
mitigate
the Initiative's capacity‐building testing of the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) model. Participants' NIRN processes were Western and mainstream. Participants wanted community‐designed processes and the funder to understand CBO clients’ backgrounds, cultures, and languages. The contract money did not match the needed capacity‐building processes, time, and workload.
Discussion
The funder's pre‐selected the NIRN Western majority approach did not fit. Participants wanted to lead. Capacity‐building only for home‐based program development was less desired. Social justice leadership could have made a difference.
Aims
The study aim was to examine the impact of a home‐based programme intervention on organizational contexts, implementation processes and organizational capacity outcomes from multicultural, ...multilingual participants working at community‐based organizations.
Design
This was a sequential exploratory, mixed‐methods longitudinal study using community‐based participatory research principles.
Sample
Twenty participants from nine multicultural, multilingual community‐based organizations were in this public health initiative's intervention to develop community‐designed, home‐based programmes.
Methods
Capacity building providers delivered the intervention selected by the funders. Workshop outcomes were descriptively measured in April/May 2019. In April/May and November 2019, participants completed surveys about organizational contexts, implementation processes and organizational capacity outcomes, which were analysed with t‐tests using the organization as the unit of analysis. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis.
Results
Seven programmes were new and two were modified. As workshop outcomes, 59% of participants reported increased overall implementation knowledge and 74% reported capacity building providers as the most helpful resource. After 6 to 7 months, no statistically significant changes were noted in organizational contexts, implementation processes or organizational capacity outcomes. Participants benefited from capacity building because they had programmes developed, formed partnerships with capacity building providers, gained implementation knowledge, and engaged in networking.
Conclusion
Participants reported excellent individual and organizational strengths. Many Initiative factors contributed to no statistical changes. Namely, there was no opportunity for baseline data; limited community‐based organization engagement in the intervention model selection, timeline and processes; the Initiative's timeline did not fit participants' timeline; insufficient time to develop culturally and linguistically appropriate programmes; late literature review s; lack of adequate, planful and paid capacity building time; and a contract requirement to have the programme due when it was not implementable. These Initiative design factors, as reported by participants, limited the Initiative's home‐based programme development.
Impact
This study highlights the strengths of participants, community‐based organizations and capacity building providers. Model selection, timeline and budget were identified as key factors for equitable implementation in multicultural, multilingual organizations.
Institutional discrimination matters. The purpose of this longitudinal community‐based participatory research study was to examine institutional procedural discrimination, institutional racism, and ...other institutional discrimination, and their relationships with participants' health during a maternal and child health program in a municipal initiative. Twenty participants from nine multilingual, multicultural community‐based organizations were included. Overall reported incidences of institutional procedural discrimination decreased from April 2019 (18.6%) to November 2019 (11.8%) although changes were not statistically significant and participants reporting incidences remained high (n = 15 in April and n = 14 in November). Participants reported experiencing significantly less “when different cultural ways of doing things were shared, the project did not support my way” from April 2019 (23.5%, n = 4) to November 2019 (0%, n = 0), Wilcoxon signed‐rank test Z = −2.00, p < 0.05. Some participants reported experiencing institutional racism (29.4%, n = 5) and other institutional discrimination (5.9%, n = 1). Participants experiencing institutional racism, compared to those who did not, reported a higher impact of the Initiative's program on their quality of life (t = 3.62, p < 0.01). Participatory survey designs enable nurse researchers to identify hidden pathways of institutional procedural discrimination, describe the impacts experienced, and examine types of institutional discrimination in health systems.
Abstract Aims The study aim was to examine the impact of a home‐based programme intervention on organizational contexts, implementation processes and organizational capacity outcomes from ...multicultural, multilingual participants working at community‐based organizations. Design This was a sequential exploratory, mixed‐methods longitudinal study using community‐based participatory research principles. Sample Twenty participants from nine multicultural, multilingual community‐based organizations were in this public health initiative's intervention to develop community‐designed, home‐based programmes. Methods Capacity building providers delivered the intervention selected by the funders. Workshop outcomes were descriptively measured in April/May 2019. In April/May and November 2019, participants completed surveys about organizational contexts, implementation processes and organizational capacity outcomes, which were analysed with t ‐tests using the organization as the unit of analysis. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. Results Seven programmes were new and two were modified. As workshop outcomes, 59% of participants reported increased overall implementation knowledge and 74% reported capacity building providers as the most helpful resource. After 6 to 7 months, no statistically significant changes were noted in organizational contexts, implementation processes or organizational capacity outcomes. Participants benefited from capacity building because they had programmes developed, formed partnerships with capacity building providers, gained implementation knowledge, and engaged in networking. Conclusion Participants reported excellent individual and organizational strengths. Many Initiative factors contributed to no statistical changes. Namely, there was no opportunity for baseline data; limited community‐based organization engagement in the intervention model selection, timeline and processes; the Initiative's timeline did not fit participants' timeline; insufficient time to develop culturally and linguistically appropriate programmes; late literature review abstracts; lack of adequate, planful and paid capacity building time; and a contract requirement to have the programme due when it was not implementable. These Initiative design factors, as reported by participants, limited the Initiative's home‐based programme development. Impact This study highlights the strengths of participants, community‐based organizations and capacity building providers. Model selection, timeline and budget were identified as key factors for equitable implementation in multicultural, multilingual organizations.
PDF
