| Literature DB >> 23987253 |
Pamela Rothpletz-Puglia1, Veronica M Jones, Deborah S Storm, J Scott Parrott, Kathy Ahearn O'Brien.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Building social networks for health promotion in high-poverty areas may reduce health disparities. Community involvement provides a mechanism to reach at-risk people with culturally tailored health information. Shout-out Health was a feasibility project to provide opportunity and support for women at risk for or living with human immunodeficiency virus infection to carry out health promotion within their informal social networks. COMMUNITY CONTEXT: The Shout-out Health project was designed by an academic-community agency team. During 3 months, health promotion topics were chosen, developed, and delivered to community members within informal social networks by participants living in Paterson and Jersey City, New Jersey.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23987253 PMCID: PMC3760081 DOI: 10.5888/pcd10.130018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prev Chronic Dis ISSN: 1545-1151 Impact factor: 2.830
The Shout-out Health Promotion Project Process and Procedures, New Jersey, 2011
| Step | In-Person Meeting Group | Online Meeting Group | Measures |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Recruitment and consent meeting | Recruitment and consent meeting | Questionnaire |
|
| Meeting 1: discuss self-care of health issues | Asynchronous online discussion blog and live teleconference call to discuss self-care of health issues | NA |
|
| Meetings 2 and 3: select and develop self-care of health topic | Asynchronous online discussion blog to select and develop self-care of health topic | |
|
| Meeting 3: finalize materials and plan community outreach | Asynchronous online discussion blog to finalize materials and plan community outreach | |
|
| Provide promotion of health self-care in the community | Provide promotion of health self-care in the community | Community survey |
|
| Meeting 4: discussion on community encounters | Asynchronous online discussion blog and live teleconference to discuss community encounters | Questionnaire |
Abbreviation: NA, Not applicable.
Changes in Questionnaire Empowerment Scale Scores From Pretest To Posttest Overall and Differences by City and Group, New Jersey, 2011
| Characteristic | Number | Empowerment Score |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preintervention, Mean (SD) | Postintervention, Mean (SD) | Change From Preintervention to Postintervention, Mean (SD) | ||||
| Overall change | 38 | 2.0 (0.29) | 2.0 (0.33) | 0.06 (0.25) | 1.53 | .33 |
| Paterson | 19 | 2.0 (0.27) | 2.0 (0.39) | 0.01 (0.27) | 0.26 | .79 |
| Jersey City | 19 | 2.0 (0.31) | 1.9 (0.27) | 0.11 (0.28) | 1.73 | .10 |
| In-person meeting group | 29 | 2.0 (0.27) | 2.0 (0.32) | 0.05 (0.26) | 0.99 | .33 |
| Online meeting group | 9 | 2.0 (0.36) | 1.9 (0.40) | 0.11 (0.23) | 1.44 | .18 |
| Autonomous motivation | 28 | 2.0 (0.27) | 1.9 (0.29) | 0.10 (0.24) | 2.22 | .03 |
| Controlled motivation | 10 | 2.0 (0.36) | 2.1 (0.44) | −0.04 (0.26) | −0.52 | .61 |
Number of participants who completed each item within the Empowerment Scale.
Possible scores ranged from 1 to 4.
Paired t test.
Qualitatively determined by the study facilitators within self-determination theory constructs.