0
Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

1
Reviews and Overviews   |    
Bridging Community Intervention and Mental Health Services Research
Kenneth Wells, M.D., M.P.H.; Jeanne Miranda, Ph.D.; Martha L. Bruce, Ph.D, M.P.H.; Margarita Alegria, Ph.D.; Nina Wallerstein, Dr.P.H.
Am J Psychiatry 2004;161:955-963. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.161.6.955

OBJECTIVE: This article explores the potential of community intervention perspectives for increasing the relevance, reach, and public health impact of mental health services research. METHOD: The authors reviewed community intervention strategies, including public health and community development and empowerment interventions, and contrast community intervention with practice-based quality improvement and policy research. RESULTS: A model was proposed to integrate health services and community intervention research, building on the evidence-based strength of quality improvement and participatory methods of community intervention to produce complementary functions, such as linking community-based case finding and referral with practice-based quality improvement, enhanced by community-based social support for treatment adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The community intervention approach is a major paradigm for affecting public health or addressing health disparities. Despite challenges in implementation and evaluation, it represents a promising approach for extending the reach of mental health services interventions into diverse communities.

Abstract Teaser
Figures in this Article

Psychiatric disorders are leading causes of morbidity in the community, but most persons with such disorders do not receive appropriate care (13). Addressing unmet needs by increasing access and improving the quality of services is a major goal of mental health services research. Some progress toward this goal has been achieved through the development of effective and cost-effective service delivery interventions. These programs have had limited public health impact because practices typically do not sustain them after research trials and other practices may not adopt them even when they are proven effective (46).

Current challenges for health services research are to strengthen, sustain, and disseminate practice interventions that improve the quality of care, promote access for those with unmet need, and increase efficiency so that care is affordable for all (7, 8). Traditional health services research approaches, whether observational or experimental, may be insufficient to meet these challenges. Rosenheck (9) has argued that research interventions are buffered from the demands that systems face in a more open community environment, where program and treatment choices are made according to the priorities of multiple stakeholders and in the context of changing ownership and diverse policy influences. Furthermore, health services research interventions and evaluations are commonly designed by experts and may not reflect the values of administrators, providers, and consumers making program decisions in community-based service settings.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the use of community intervention strategies, which foster community participation in the aim of improving public health, and to enhance the scope and power of health services research to reduce the burden of unmet mental health needs. Despite a tradition of concern with community-based services, the mental health field has not developed a community intervention research agenda or explored how those methods might enhance community reach and embeddedness or broaden the scope of outcomes for interventions involving psychiatric disorders (10, 11).

To date, health services research has generated information aimed at reducing unmet mental health need through two main approaches. The first has been by evaluating how policy initiatives or market trends affect access, quality, or outcomes of care. Policy initiatives and evaluations typically have broad public scope. For the most part, evaluations of recent policy initiatives, such as parity bills, and market trends, such as the rapid growth of managed care, have not addressed outcomes of mental health care. Results concerning mental health care access or quality have been either contradictory across studies or suggest limited impact (1216). High unmet need for appropriate care for psychiatric disorders persists, even as the policy and market environment changes dramatically (2, 3).

The second research approach has been in developing and evaluating practice-based interventions designed to improve quality of care. Successful examples of effective or cost-effective approaches include quality improvement interventions based on the collaborative care model of chronic disease management for depression in primary care (1719), assertive community treatment for adults with severe mental disorders (2022), and multisystem therapy for children with severe conduct disorders (23). Although such interventions are currently the subject of dissemination efforts, most evidence-based quality improvement interventions have had limited public impact because practices do not sustain them and they are not adopted by other practices (6, 14). The reasons are multifaceted and often reflect forces both inside and outside the health care system (24). For example, clinical practices may not be the most efficient venue for reducing stigma, a major barrier to care (7, 8). Addressing such concerns may require empowering consumers through public education and local community support.

Community intervention approaches have been used successfully to promote community participation and enhance responsiveness to public health priorities (10, 11). Health services interventions typically target consumers or plan enrollees, providers, or health care administrators or policy makers. Community interventions either 1) target communities (community targeted); 2) use community resources and change strategies based in communities (community based); or 3) are oriented to the needs, perspectives, and priorities of communities and empower them to achieve their goals (community driven) (10). More fundamentally, a community perspective offers a unique philosophical orientation for improving health through reaching the public or promoting participation, neither of which is a strong feature of health services research.

Few mental health studies have used community intervention strategies. Mental health preventive intervention research, for example, is largely limited to extensions of practice interventions to high-risk groups (25). Public campaigns for mental disorders have had few rigorous evaluations (26). Nevertheless, community interventions have been widely used to address other major public health problems and improve the management of chronic disease. For example, public campaigns have been used to reduce behavioral risk factors, increase early detection and intervention, and promote adherence with recommended treatments for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer (11, 26–28), including for stigmatized conditions like HIV infection (29, 30). Recent research initiatives by foundations and federal agencies, including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (31), the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (32), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (33), encourage community participatory research, partly as a result of community demand for relevant interventions (34).

We define communities as social groups with a collective identity or shared attitudes and experiences, whether social, cultural, political, occupational, or based on affiliation through geography, institutions, or communication channels. Two community intervention fields are relevant to mental health services approaches: public health interventions and community development interventions. These fields share principles and methods but differ from health services research approaches in the locus of decision making for and in the intended outcomes of interventions, as well as research process and evaluation methods (34, 35).

+

Public Health Interventions

Public health interventions use a socio-ecological framework in which the origins of the health problem are identified at multiple levels (individual, family, organization, community, and public policy) (35). Interventions are implemented within and across levels to reduce individual and collective health risks (27, 36). For example, a diabetes prevention intervention might include school-based education, family cooking classes, enhanced nutritional labeling, access to fresh foods, policies to promote walking paths, and community policing to promote safety. Interventions that operate across multiple levels of the socio-ecological framework and link these levels may be more effective and have greater reach into populations than single-focus interventions (36, 37).

Theories are used to identify goals for interventions, such as change in attitudes, skill, or knowledge to design communication messages and delivery strategies (38). They can facilitate tailoring interventions for the attitudes or behaviors of different age, gender, or cultural groups (26, 39, 40). Prominent behavior theories underlying many research-based public health interventions include the social cognitive theory (41), the theory of planned behavior (or reasoned action) (42), the health belief model (43), the transtheoretical model (44), and others (45). Interpersonal, organizational, and social change theories become important to include when considering integrating interventions across the socio-ecological spectrum (45).

National and regional campaigns are public health interventions that often combine media-based strategies aimed at the public with activation of local resources (26, 38, 46). More intensive local strategies use individual counseling sessions (47); home visitations (48, 49); telephone, Internet, or print materials (50, 51); or group sessions (52, 53). Not surprisingly, more intensive interventions tend to have the strongest outcomes (11, 26, 37, 54, 55). To enhance reach and effectiveness, a social environmental approach combining media, policy, and community with intensive local intervention can help address the public health mission of reaching at-risk individuals, preventing others from entering the pool of at-risk individuals, and shifting public expectations for health behavior and health care (26, 56, 57).

Among local strategies, work-based interventions have the advantage of permitting simultaneous change activities at organizational, environmental, and individual levels (5860). Interventions fielded in churches have also been successful, for example, in improving historically low mammography rates in African American women (61). Faith-based interventions have used pastoral sermons, health-related testimony, scripturally relevant printer material focused on behavior change, peer health advisors, and church volunteers. Nevertheless, locally contextualized interventions can be difficult to sustain even when infrastructure is developed to support them (62). Developing community resources and mobilizing broader community and political support may facilitate sustainability, but these goals require the integration of intervention approaches concerning public health, public policy, and community development (6365).

Evaluating public health interventions can be challenging (34, 66, 67). National campaigns are difficult to evaluate because market saturation is key to effectiveness, and comparison groups and randomization options may be limited. Impacts are often measured through broad community indicators because resources are typically not available to measure individual change (11, 38). It can be difficult to account for extraneous influences such as media coverage independent of the campaign (38). Although some work site and faith-based health promotion studies used experimental designs, reviews suggest that methods limitations often preclude firm conclusions regarding effectiveness (66). In some areas such as cardiovascular risk reduction, there is more consistent evidence of effectiveness but with different outcome indicators across studies (37). National and local communication interventions, for example, have been effective at raising the rates of mammography screening while reducing disparities in screening rates (26). Evaluations of local intensive public health interventions often use case study methods and triangulation through mixed methods (66, 67).

Public health interventions for mental health conditions remain largely undeveloped in the United States. Although the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) Depression Awareness, Recognition, and Treatment Program represented a 10-year national campaign, it was never evaluated (68). The evaluation of National Depression Day relied on a process evaluation and impact on referral and use among participants (69). A review in the international literature (70) suggested that in mental health prevention and promotion programs, media interventions can improve access to social services or change attitudes but individual behavior change requires local face-to-face intervention.

+

Community Development

Community development initiatives seek to increase the capacity and resources of communities (71). The classic typology, formulated by Rothman and Tropman (72), includes social planning by outside experts, locality development or participatory development of goals and programs, and social action or advocacy. Strategies used include grassroots organizing, professional organizers, coalitions, census development, problem solving, political and legislative action, and nonviolent confrontation (72, 73). A more recent typology excludes social planning and promotes the value of community building from people’s strengths and assets, in addition to community organizing methods (71).

Community empowerment is a community development strategy that derives from the work of the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (74). This approach uses nontraditional educational methods to enable individuals to understand their goals independent of the prevailing social order and to develop capacities to realize these goals (75). Applications to health focus on enhancing awareness of needs, promoting effective problem solving, and developing capacities for implementing solutions in high-risk communities (75, 76). A related strategy is media advocacy, which seeks to create leverage for broader policy change by influencing public opinion (77). Because the goals and approaches used in participatory community interventions cannot be fully specified in advance, evaluations rely on action research methods and qualitative or mixed methods (6567). Some evaluations also use experimental strategies, such as group-level randomized trials (78). Charles and DeMaio (79) established a framework to judge the degree of community participation. More recent reviews suggest that greater community involvement may promote intervention adoption and sustainability (11, 34, 80, 81).

In participatory research, skills are required in developing trust with community members and leaders and dealing with differences in authority (73). Conflicts may arise over priorities for sustaining interventions versus identifying experimental effects and for outcomes such as neighborhood safety versus health (76, 82). Community interventions shift the focus away from individuals and toward the process of engagement and impacts on communities, entailing a different measurement and assessment process.

Community research can require substantial developmental time, and the evaluation phase may be of long duration. The feasibility of achieving change in communities may be affected by political and social factors. Hence, community research requires long-term commitment to particular communities (73, 82).

Strategies that can help mitigate these problems include agreeing on goals and expectations at the outset, maintaining a structured, equal partnership, using an independent community organizer, sharing expertise and resources across community organizations and researchers, educating the community about research goals and purposes, and developing financial support for community programs (73, 75, 81, 82).

Even though community intervention research poses unique challenges, many of the conceptual, practical, and methods challenges are similar to those of practice-based quality improvement research, in which exact goals are not easily specified in advance and long-term commitment is required, and to policy research, where randomization options and availability of suitable databases for evaluation are limited (8386). Furthermore, the conceptual and measurement frameworks underlying both policy and quality improvement research are similar: both suggest that health interventions should be embedded within local contexts and address and involve multiple stakeholders (34, 87). As in community intervention research, evaluations of practice-based quality improvement interventions and public policies have revealed mixed results; however, health services research has not retreated from designing and evaluating quality improvement interventions or evaluating policy (11, 88, 89). Furthermore, with recent advances in methods, health services research has yielded a new generation of policy and quality improvement studies (9092) that are interpretable and useful to health care systems. For example, research on quality improvement interventions for depression in primary care progressed from the development of effective models within well-organized practices to effective models being implemented by community-based practices under minimal research supervision (4, 17, 18, 92).

The Institute of Medicine recommends integrating principles from quality improvement intervention and community participatory intervention through a community health improvement process to achieve a broader change in the health of communities (93). The community health improvement process model is based on two stages of intervention development and evaluation. The first stage builds a community stakeholder coalition to monitor community health indicators and identify community health priorities. The second stage involves developing, implementing, and evaluating the impact of health improvement strategies designed to address those high-priority health concerns. The focus of this model is on monitoring community health indicators and developing feasible strategies within communities to improve the health concerns of interest, according to local priorities. The community health improvement process is iterative, similar to continuous quality improvement processes for health care improvement (8789). A multisite demonstration based on this model showed health improvements for some population subgroups in two of nine demonstration communities (94, 95), but the full model has been neither implemented nor evaluated (93). Furthermore, the testimony of programs that had attempted the model suggested that it was complex and often not feasible and that communities may not necessarily choose evidence-based solutions (93).

We propose an alternative approach, the evidence-based community/partnership model, that is designed to support health improvement goals through evidence-based strategies while building community and practice capacity to implement those strategies in a manner consistent with community priorities, culture, and values. This model relies on a partnership between communities, community advocates, health care practices, and researchers, blending techniques of community participatory intervention and evidence-based quality improvement programs.

The first step of our proposed evidence-based community/partnership model relies on developing a negotiated set of goals among local community stakeholders, practices, and researchers. This might range from having the community voice its priorities regarding service improvements to implementing evidence-based practice interventions with a public inner-city hospital. Among psychiatric disorders, examples well suited to an evidence-based approach might include improving care for schizophrenia, depressive disorder, or attention deficit disorder. However, psychiatric disorders and treatments may be poorly understood by communities, especially as diagnostic criteria and therapeutic interventions have been evolving. This suggests a need for capacity building through empowerment education (73).

The second step focuses on matching community needs, resources, and values with evidence-based practice strategies to address unmet need and tailored to the community context. This may involve adapting practice interventions for local community practices and developing complementary community interventions to extend the reach of practice interventions into the community. It may also include building capacity in the practices to increase the engagement and retention of economically disadvantaged clients to benefit from evidence-based care or building the capacity of community agencies to access practice interventions. The evidence-based community/partnership model differs from the community health improvement process model in specifically bridging to an evidence-based intervention and focusing on health and health care change strategies rather than a health-monitoring process (93).

A key feature of the evidence-based community/partnership model is using a participatory process to define and enable complementary community intervention activities that support the principles of the practice intervention, as well as to adapt the practice intervention to respond to the needs, priorities, and culture of the target community. These activities involve identifying key functions that could be performed within the community to extend the reach and impact of the program. Examples of functions are screening for depression through health fairs or web-based programs in education centers; facilitating referral to practices hosting evidence-based quality improvement programs through lay health workers; or developing social programs, for example, through lay groups in faith-based organizations or parent associations in schools. Another community function might be reinforcing therapeutic goals through social or material support, such as providing resources for transportation to visits or providing outlets for increased social activities that are recommended by therapists.

Given a set of defined functions, a participatory process can be used to define intervention roles and to specify necessary personnel to provide those functions. Protocols that document the roles and functions can be used to support community staff training and increase program reproducibility and reliability.

During intervention development and implementation, partnership members may adopt different roles at different project stages; one indicator of a successful partnership may be flexibility in shifting roles to support different goals. For example, in adapting an existing evidence-based practice strategy locally, the community serves as an implementation partner. In contrast, when determining how to build service capacity given a weak local health care infrastructure, the community serves the role of leader and activist, aided by research knowledge and political support. Community, practice, and research teams serve complementary roles in understanding local cultural norms and in matching expectations and conflicts in the community with proposed intervention activities (87). Furthermore, in initiating new program directions, the research team may collaborate with the community leaders as capacity builders (71). But even this capacity-building role for researchers could emerge from a participatory analysis of options with the community partners. From the practice’s perspective, their role may be as a laboratory to test the adoption of interventions (the practice in the role of recipient/site of the intervention) (87), as a generator of solutions for improving access (the practice as leader), or as a consultant on what strategies work and under what conditions they can be sustained (the practice as expert advisor). Thus, role definitions of partners may vary as a function of the goals, community resources, practice context, history of interactions among stakeholders, funding constraints, and other factors (34).

Community development approaches can potentially encompass the range of partnership roles just outlined (71). Overall, the evidence-based community/partnership model uses community development and participatory public health intervention principles to achieve a fit of community need, experience, and priorities; practice capacities; and research evidence on how change can be achieved and to estimate the likely consequences. In such a collaboration, all partners have equal importance.

The evidence-based community/partnership model incorporates outcomes that span those of primary interest to the community stakeholders, as well as those that reflect outcomes adapted from successful effectiveness studies of evidence-based practices. However, existing data sources in the community are unlikely to include outcome measures used in prior effectiveness trials, posing challenges to implementing outcomes evaluation. Attending to community outcomes priorities may require a focus on factors such as a reduction of violence in neighborhoods or use of after-school programs. In this case, the research team would work with the community to determine the evidence basis for those outcomes in relationship to the designed program or suggest modifications of the program to better influence those outcomes and develop appropriate measures of them within the community.

By way of illustration, an evidence-based community/partnership initiative might focus on depression as a problem of interest to researchers, a given community, and local practices. The participatory community partnership identifying this priority and developing the evidence-based community partnership might include representatives from a local housing project, a community-based advocacy group, a local faith-based organization serving the poor, a representative of the mayor’s office, and local mental health services and community researchers. A goal might be set of introducing an existing evidence-based practice quality improvement intervention, such as Partners in Care (4), into a free clinic, by using a nurse care manager and training local physicians, with a link to a local mental health clinic. The planning group might decide that broader community outreach of this program could be achieved through monthly health fairs spanning diet, exercise, and depression management and cosponsored by a faith-based organization and a school. At the fair, free, confidential screenings of families could be provided by health workers. Broader community education might be promoted through community meetings in schools or on a local radio talk show. At the health fair, trained health workers could follow up on those who screen positive with a home visit or a telephone call and serve as a referral source for the local public health clinic. To reduce the burden on the clinic for this expanded caseload, the health workers might offer to conduct home visits for existing patients. Resources to meet community needs, such as housing or transportation vouchers provided by the mayor’s office, could be coordinated through a trained home-helper service or a faith-based volunteer workforce. Central to all of these activities, however, is the goal of increasing access to appropriate (evidence-based) care and community support to reduce unmet need for such care. This kind of intervention model would be difficult to either design or implement without extensive community-based partnership.

The evaluation would focus on the process of development of the evidence-based community/partnership intervention, including the development process’ effects on those participating, the costs of running the program, and the effects of the program itself on those screened and served in terms of access to care, quality of care, and health outcomes. Other outcomes of interest might be identified by the community. Depending on its scope, change in community awareness might be assessed through a community telephone or household survey or through focus groups in community settings. The project would initially require a qualitative process evaluation and more a formal mixed methods evaluation of the impact of implementation.

The evidence-based community/partnership model differs from a fully participatory process, which could lead to more sustained change but not necessarily to use of evidence-informed strategies. It differs from a practice-based quality improvement intervention in its focus on developing community capacity and compatibility of the intervention within local culture. It differs from the community health improvement process in focusing on quality improvement and evidence-based strategies rather than on health monitoring. Achieving the negotiated goal-setting process we propose may be challenging and suggests a new role for mental health services researchers within communities. The norms of "deliberative democracy" proposed by Daniels (96) offer one approach for establishing a fair process of integrating community, practice, and research priorities.

Implementing such interventions safely would likely require guidelines for ethical use of confidential information outside the context of health care settings. While the extent of social stigmatization of persons with mental disorders may raise concerns about community-based screening and other intervention activities, similar approaches have been used effectively for other stigmatized conditions (8, 29, 30). Community participants, for example, would have to be warned of real risks, such as embarrassment or job or insurance coverage losses, if a history of depression is disclosed through activities occurring outside health care environments. Communication with community organizations would have to be compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations and local standards of practice.

Mental health services research interventions have focused on health policy initiatives or practice programs to improve access to appropriate care in response to widespread concerns about health care system factors contributing to a "quality chasm" (24). Community interventions focus on behavioral change of the public or the development of communities and social action targets based on community priorities not necessarily involving health care change. Health services research interventions are often expert driven, while community interventions range from expert driven to participatory. Across such approaches, the environmental context for intervention is complex, and multiple stakeholders are involved, leading to challenges in intervention design, implementation, and evaluation (9). The scope of implementation for applied studies can limit evaluation options, but generally, health services interventions have been evaluated through randomized or quasi-experimental designs, while community interventions are typically evaluated through case study and action research models by using qualitative or mixed methods, with a strong focus on the intervention process.

Despite differences in perspectives and methods, community and health services intervention approaches may offer new opportunities to achieve goals of public health reach and sustainability. The NIMH Working Group on Research on Affective Disorders (97) recently suggested exploring such community intervention models as an alternative paradigm for increasing public reach or addressing health disparities that have not been articulated (7, 8, 11, 12, 92). Evidence of broad societal impacts, such as reduced unemployment resulting from practice-based interventions for depression, reinforce the potential benefits to diverse communities of facilitating better access to appropriate care (4, 92).

Exploring this new integration will require interdisciplinary collaborations and training that span public health, health services, community, and policy research; qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods; and investigator skill in community participatory research and coalition building as well as evidence-based practice interventions. Development of this field may require academic departments and schools to broaden their criteria for academic promotion, for example, to include evidence of community health improvement and other positive impacts on communities as promotion criteria and to more strongly value team contributions as evidence of important scholarly activity.

In summary, we raise the question of whether community interventions can potentiate the effect of practice-based interventions while improving consumer centeredness and community relevance. While the field should initially focus on exploring the feasibility and potential impact on community populations, in the long run, the field should focus on whether such approaches achieve either more enduring or far-reaching reductions in the individual and societal burden of mental illness for diverse communities, in which burden is defined at least partly in community terms.

Received Jan. 31, 2003; revisions received May 29 and Sept. 2, 2003; accepted Sept. 8, 2003. From the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles; the Health Program, RAND, Santa Monica, Calif.; the Department of Psychiatry, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, White Plains, N.Y.; the Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research, Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; and the Master’s in Public Health Program, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Address reprint requests to Dr. Wells, UCLA/NPI Health Services Research Center, 10920 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90024; kwells@ucla.edu (e-mail).Funded by grants from the NIMH Center for Research on Managed Care for Psychiatric Disorders (MH-54623), the Interventions and Practice Infrastructure Program Treatment of Late Life Depression in Home Care (MH-64608), and the Latino Research Project Program (MH-59876) and by an NIMH Independent Investigator Career Development Award (MH-01634).

Murray C, Lopez AD: The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability From Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020. Boston, Harvard School of Public Health on behalf of the World Health Organization and the World Bank, 1996
 
Young AS, Klap R, Sherbourne CD, Wells KB: The quality of care for depressive and anxiety disorders in the United States. Arch Gen Psychiatry  2001; 58:55–61
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wang PS, Berglund P, Kessler RC: Recent care of common mental disorders in the United States: prevalence and conformance with evidence-based recommendations. J Gen Intern Med  2000; 15:284–292
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wells KB, Sherbourne C, Schoenbaum M, Duan N, Meredith LS, Unützer J, Miranda J, Carney MF, Rubenstein LV: Impact of disseminating quality improvement programs for depression in managed primary care: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA  2000; 283:212–220
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Lin EH, Katon WJ, Simon GE, Von Korff M, Bush TM, Rutter CM, Saunders KW, Walker EA: Achieving guidelines for the treatment of depression in primary care: is physician education enough? Med Care  1998; 35:831–842
 
Schoenwald SK, Hoagwood K: Effectiveness, transportability and dissemination of interventions: what matters when? Psychiatr Serv  2001; 52:1190–1197
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity: A Supplement to Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, Md, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Office of the Surgeon General, 2001
 
Bridging Science and Service: A Report by the National Advisory Mental Health Council’s Treatment and Services Workgroup. Bethesda, Md, National Institute of Mental Health, 1998
 
Rosenheck R: Organizational process: a missing link between research and practice. Psychiatr Serv  2001; 52:1607–1612
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wallerstein N, Polacsek M, Maltrud K: Participatory evaluation model for coalitions: the development of systems indicators. Health Promot Pract  2002; 3:361–373
[CrossRef]
 
Smedley BD, Syme SL (Committee on Capitalizing on Social Science and Behavioral Research to Improve the Public’s Health, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention): Promoting Health: Intervention Strategies From Social and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2000
 
Pacula RL, Sturm R: Mental health parity legislation: much ado about nothing? Health Serv Res  2000; 35:263–275
[PubMed]
 
Sturm R, Pacula RL: State mental health parity laws: cause or consequence of difference in use? Health Aff (Millwood)  1999; 18:182–192
 
Sturm R: How expensive is unlimited mental health care coverage under managed care? JAMA  1997; 278:1533–1537
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Frank RG, McGuire TG: Parity for mental health and substance abuse care under managed care. J Ment Health Policy Econ  1998; 1:153–159
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wells KB, Manning WG Jr, Benjamin B: Use of outpatient mental health services in HMO and free-for-service plans: results from a randomized controlled trial. Health Serv Res  1986; 21:453–474
[PubMed]
 
Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, Walker E, Simon GE, Bush T, Robinson P, Russo J: Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines: impact on depression in primary care. JAMA  1995; 273:1026–1031
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Katon W, Robinson P, Von Korff M, Lin E, Bush T, Ludman E, Simon G, Walker E: A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Gen Psychiatry  1996; 53:924–932
[PubMed]
 
Hunkeler EM, Meresman JF, Hargreaves WA, Fireman B, Berman WH, Kirsch AJ, Groebe J, Hurt SW, Braden P, Getzell M, Feigenbaum PA, Peng T, Salzer M: Efficacy of nurse telehealth care and peer support in augmenting treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Fam Med  2000; 9:700–708
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Marshall M, Lockwood A: Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; 2:CD001089
 
Scott JE, Dixon LB: Assertive community treatment and case management for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull  1995; 21:657–668
[PubMed]
 
Clarke G, Herinkx H, Kinney R, Paulson R, Cutler DL, Lewis K, Oxman E: Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized trial of two ACT programs vs usual care. Ment Health Serv Res  2000; 2:155–164
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Henggeler SW: Multisystemic therapy with juvenile offenders: an effective family-based treatment. Family Psychologist  1993; 9:24–26
 
Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2001
 
Clarke GN, Hornbrook M, Lynch F, Polen M, Gale J, Beardslee W, O’Connor E, Seeley J: A randomized trial of a group cognitive intervention for preventing depression in adolescent offspring of depressed parents. Arch Gen Psychiatry  2001; 58:1127–1134
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Institute of Medicine Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century: Speaking of Health: Assessing Health Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2002
 
Emmons K: Health Behaviors in Social Context, in Social Epidemiology. Edited by Berkman L, Kawachi I. New York, Oxford University Press, 2000
 
Truman BI, Smith-Akin CK, Hinman AR, Gebbie KM, Brownson R, Novick LF, Lawrence RS, Pappaioanou M, Fielding J, Evans CA Jr, Guerra FA, Vogel-Taylor M, Mahan CS, Fullilove M, Zaza S (Task Force on Community Preventive Services): Developing the guide to community preventative services—overview and rationale. Am J Prev Med  2000; 18:18–26
 
Fullilove MT: Anxiety and stigmatizing aspects of HIV infection. J Clin Psychiatry 1989; 50(Nov suppl):5–8
 
Alonzo AA, Reynolds NR: Stigma, HIV and AIDS: an exploration and elaboration of a stigma trajectory. Soc Sci Med  1995; 41:303–315
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Changing Practices, Changing Lives: Assessing the Impacts of the HRSA Health Disparities Collaboratives (RFA: HS-02–005). . nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HS-02–005.html
 
National Institute of Health, National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities: Excellence in Partnerships for Community Outreach, Research on Health Disparities and Training (Project Export) (RFA: MD-02–002). . nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-MD-02–002.html
 
US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Summary of Program Announcement 02003: Community-Based Participatory Prevention Research.
 
Minkler M, Wallerstein N: Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2003
 
Stokols D: Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am J Health Promot  1996; 10:282–298
[PubMed]
 
McKinlay JB: The new public health approach to improving physical activity and autonomy in older populations, in Preparation for Aging. Edited by Heikkinen E, Kuusinen J, Ruoppila I. New York, Plenum, 1995, pp 87–104
 
Schooler C, Farquhar JW, Fortmann SP, Flora JA: Synthesis of findings and issues from community prevention trials. Ann Epidemiol 1997; 7(suppl):S54-S68
 
Hornick RC: Public Health Communication: Evidence for Behavior Change. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002
 
Dijkstra de Vries AH, Roijackers J: Long-term effectiveness of computer-generated tailored feedback in smoking cessation. Health Educ Res  1998; 13:207–214
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Bull FC, Jamrozick K, Blanksby BA: Tailored advice on exercise: does it make a difference? Am J Prev Med  1999; 16:230–239
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Bandura A: Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1986
 
Ajzen I, Fishbein M: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1980
 
Rosenstock IM: Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Monogr  1974; 2:328–335
 
Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Evers KE: The transtheoretical model and stages of change, in Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3rd ed. Edited by Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2002, pp 99–120
 
Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK: Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3rd ed. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2002
 
Fisher EB Jr, Lichtenstein E, Haire-Joshu D, Morgan GD, Rehberg HR: Methods, success, and failures of smoking cessation programs. Annu Rev Med  1993; 44:481–513
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Compas BE, Haaga DA, Keefe FJ, Leitenberg H, Williams DA: Sampling of empirically supported psychological treatments from health psychology: smoking, chronic pain, cancer, and bulimia nervosa. J Consult Clin Psychol  1998; 66:89–112
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Tatelbaum R, Chamberlin R: Improving the delivery of prenatal care and outcomes of pregnancy: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics  1986; 77:18–28
 
Olds DL, Eckenrode J, Henderson CR Jr, Kitzman H, Powers J, Cole R, Sidora K, Morris P, Pettitt LM, Luckey D: Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect: fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA  1997; 278:637–643
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Ferguson T, Madara EJ: Health Online: How to find Health Information, Support Groups, and Self-Help Communities in Cyberspace. Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley, 1996
 
Street R, Gold W, Manning T: Health Promotion and Interactive Technology: Theoretical Applications and Future Directions. London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997
 
Hayaki J, Brownell KD: Behaviour change in practice: group approaches. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996; 20(suppl 1):S27-S30
 
Stead LF, Lancaster T: Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; 2:CD001007
 
Bowen D, Henderson MM, Iverson D: Reducing dietary fat: understanding the success of the Women’s Health Trial. Cancer Prevention Int  1994; 1:21–30
 
Sorensen G, Emmons K, Hunt M: Public Health Interventions Targeting Health Behaviors: Building on Research to Date. Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press (in press)
 
Sorensen G, Lando H, Pechacek TF: Promoting smoking cessation at the workplace: results of a randomized controlled intervention study. J Occup Med  1993; 35:121–126
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation Research Group: Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT), I: cohort results from a four-year community intervention, and II: changes in adult cigarette smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health  1995; 85:183–200
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Glasgow RE, Terborg JR, Hollis JF, Severson HH, Boles SM: Take heart: results from an initial phase of a worksite wellness program. Am J Public Health  1995; 58:209–216
 
Glasgow RE, Terborg JR, Strycker LA, Boles SM, Hollis JF: Take heart, II: replication of a worksite health promotion trial. J Behav Med  1997; 20:143–161
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Roman P, Blum T: Alcohol: a review of the impact of worksite interventions on health and behavior outcomes. Am J Health Promot  1996; 11:136–149
[PubMed]
 
Fox SA, Pitkin K, Paul C, Carson S, Duan N: Breast cancer screening adherence: does church attendance matter? Health Educ Behav  1998; 25:742–758
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Sorensen G, Stoddard A, Hunt MK, Hebert JR, Ockene JK, Avrunin JS, Himmelstein J, Hammond SK: The effects of a health promotion-health protection intervention on behavior change: the WellWorks Study. Am J Public Health  1998; 88:1685–1690
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Jackson C, Fortmann SP, Flora JA, Melton RJ, Snider JP, Littlefield D: The capacity-building approach to intervention maintenance implemented by the Stanford Five-City Project. Health Educ Res  1994; 9:385–396
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Dishman RK, Oldenburg B, O’Neal H, Shephard RJ: Worksite physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med  1998; 15:344–361
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Schneiderman N, Speers MA, Silva JM, Tomes H, Gentry JH (eds): Integrating Behavioral and Social Sciences With Public Health. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association Press, 2000
 
Goodman R: Principles and tools for evaluating community-based prevention and health promotion programs, in Community-Based Prevention. Edited by Brownson RC, Baker EA, Novick LF. Rockville, Md, Aspen, 1999, pp 211–228
 
Goodman RM: Evaluation of community-based health programs: an alternate perspective, in Integrating Behavioral and Social Sciences With Public Health. Edited by Schneiderman N, Speers MA, Silva JM, Tomes H, Gentry JH. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association Press, 2001, pp 293–304
 
Regier DA, Hirschfeld RM, Goodwin FK, Burke JD Jr, Lazar JB, Judd LL: The NIMH Depression Awareness, Recognition, and Treatment Program: structure, aims, and scientific basis. Am J Psychiatry  1988; 145:1351–1357
[PubMed]
 
Jacobs DG: Depression screening as an intervention against suicide. J Clin Psychiatry  1999; 60:42–45
 
Devault A: L’utilisation efficace des medias de masse dans des programmes de prevention et de promotion de la sante mentale. Can J Community Ment Health  2000; 19:21–35
 
Minkler M: Community Organizing and Community Building. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1999
 
Rothman J, Tropman JE: Models for community organization and macro practice: their mixing and phasing, in Strategies of Community Organization, 4th ed. Edited by Cox FM, Erlich JL, Rothman J, Tropman JE. Itaska, Ill, Peacock, 1987, pp 3–26
 
Israel BA, Schultz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB: Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Ann Rev Pub Health  1998; 19:173–202
[CrossRef]
 
Wallerstein N, Bernstein E: Empowerment education: Freire’s ideas adapted to health education. Health Educ Q  1988; 15:379–394
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Israel BA, Checkoway B, Schultz A: Health education through community organization and community building: a health education perspective, in Community Organizing and Community Building for Health. Edited by Minkler M. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1999
 
Minkler M, Wallerstein M: Improving health through community organization and community building: a health education perspective, in Community Organizing and Community Building for Health. Edited by Minkler M. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1999, pp 30–52
 
Wallack L, Dorfman L: Media advocacy: a strategy for advancing policy and promoting health. Health Educ Q  1996; 23:293–317
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Murray DM: Efficacy and effectiveness trials in health promotion and disease prevention: design and analysis of group-randomized trials, in Integrating Behavioral and Social Sciences With Public Health. Edited by Schneiderman N, Speers MA, Silva JM, Tomes H, Gentry JH. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association Press, 2001, pp 305–320
 
Charles C, DeMaio S: Lay participation in healthcare decision making: a conceptual framework. J Health Polit Policy Law  1993; 18:811–904
 
Goodman RM, Wheeler FC, Lee PR: Evaluation of the Heart-to-Heart Project: lessons from a community-based chronic disease prevention project. Am J Health Promot  1995; 9:443–455
[PubMed]
 
Green L, Mercer SL: Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities? Am J Public Health  2001; 91:1926–1929
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wallerstein N: A participatory evaluation model for healthier communities: developing indicators for New Mexico. Public Health Rep  2000; 115:199–204
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Heckman JJ, Hotz VJ, Dabos M: Do we need experimental data to evaluate the impact of manpower training on earnings? Eval Rev  1987; 11:395–427
[CrossRef]
 
Berk RA, Boruch RF, Chambers DL, Rossi PH, Witte AD: Social policy experimentation, a position paper. Eval Rev  1985; 9:387–429
[CrossRef]
 
Palumbo DJ, Oliverio A: Implementation theory and the theory-driven approach to validity. Eval Program Plann  1989; 12:337–344
[CrossRef]
 
Burtless G, Orr LL: Are classical experiments needed for manpower policy? J Hum Res  1986; 21:606–639
[CrossRef]
 
Rubenstein LV, Mittman BS, Yano EM, Mulrow CD: From understanding health care provider behavior to improving health care: the QUERI framework for quality improvement. Med Care 2000; 38(6, suppl 1):I129-I141
 
Shortell SM, Bennett CL, Byck GR: Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement on clinical practice: what it will take to accelerate progress? Milbank Q  1998; 76:593–624
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Blumenthal D, Kilo CM: A report card on continuous quality improvement. Milbank Q  1998; 76:593–624
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Simon GE, Von Korff M, Rutter C, Wagner E: Randomised trial of monitoring, feedback, and management of care by telephone to improve treatment of depression in primary care. BMJ  2001; 320:550–554
 
Rost K, Nutting P, Smith J, Werner J, Duan N: Improving depression outcomes in community primary care practice: a randomized trial of the QUEST intervention. J Gen Intern Med  2001; 16:143–149
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Schoenbaum M, Unützer J, Sherbourne C, Duan N, Rubenstein LV, Miranda J, Meredith LS, Carney MF, Wells K: Cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated quality improvement for depression: results of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA  2001; 286:1325–1330
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Durch JS, Bailey LA, Stoto MA (Institute of Medicine Committee on Using Performance Monitoring to Improve Community Health): Improving Health in the Community: A Role for Performance Monitoring. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1997
 
Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M: Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q  1996; 74:511–544
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wagner EH, Wickizer TM, Cheadle A, Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Diehr P: The Kaiser Family Foundation Community Health Promotion Grants Program: findings from an outcome evaluation. Health Serv Res  2000; 35:561–589
[PubMed]
 
Daniels N: Justice, fair procedures, and the goals of medicine. Hastings Center Rep  1996; 26:10–12
[CrossRef]
 
Wells K, Miranda J, Bauer MS, Bruce M, Durham M, Escobar J, Ford D, Gonzales J, Hoagwood K, Horowitz S, Lawson W, Lewis L, McGuire T, Pincus H, Scheffler R: Overcoming barriers to reducing the burden of affective disorders. Biol Psychiatry  2002; 52:655–675
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
+

References

Murray C, Lopez AD: The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability From Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020. Boston, Harvard School of Public Health on behalf of the World Health Organization and the World Bank, 1996
 
Young AS, Klap R, Sherbourne CD, Wells KB: The quality of care for depressive and anxiety disorders in the United States. Arch Gen Psychiatry  2001; 58:55–61
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wang PS, Berglund P, Kessler RC: Recent care of common mental disorders in the United States: prevalence and conformance with evidence-based recommendations. J Gen Intern Med  2000; 15:284–292
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wells KB, Sherbourne C, Schoenbaum M, Duan N, Meredith LS, Unützer J, Miranda J, Carney MF, Rubenstein LV: Impact of disseminating quality improvement programs for depression in managed primary care: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA  2000; 283:212–220
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Lin EH, Katon WJ, Simon GE, Von Korff M, Bush TM, Rutter CM, Saunders KW, Walker EA: Achieving guidelines for the treatment of depression in primary care: is physician education enough? Med Care  1998; 35:831–842
 
Schoenwald SK, Hoagwood K: Effectiveness, transportability and dissemination of interventions: what matters when? Psychiatr Serv  2001; 52:1190–1197
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity: A Supplement to Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, Md, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Office of the Surgeon General, 2001
 
Bridging Science and Service: A Report by the National Advisory Mental Health Council’s Treatment and Services Workgroup. Bethesda, Md, National Institute of Mental Health, 1998
 
Rosenheck R: Organizational process: a missing link between research and practice. Psychiatr Serv  2001; 52:1607–1612
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wallerstein N, Polacsek M, Maltrud K: Participatory evaluation model for coalitions: the development of systems indicators. Health Promot Pract  2002; 3:361–373
[CrossRef]
 
Smedley BD, Syme SL (Committee on Capitalizing on Social Science and Behavioral Research to Improve the Public’s Health, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention): Promoting Health: Intervention Strategies From Social and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2000
 
Pacula RL, Sturm R: Mental health parity legislation: much ado about nothing? Health Serv Res  2000; 35:263–275
[PubMed]
 
Sturm R, Pacula RL: State mental health parity laws: cause or consequence of difference in use? Health Aff (Millwood)  1999; 18:182–192
 
Sturm R: How expensive is unlimited mental health care coverage under managed care? JAMA  1997; 278:1533–1537
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Frank RG, McGuire TG: Parity for mental health and substance abuse care under managed care. J Ment Health Policy Econ  1998; 1:153–159
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wells KB, Manning WG Jr, Benjamin B: Use of outpatient mental health services in HMO and free-for-service plans: results from a randomized controlled trial. Health Serv Res  1986; 21:453–474
[PubMed]
 
Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, Walker E, Simon GE, Bush T, Robinson P, Russo J: Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines: impact on depression in primary care. JAMA  1995; 273:1026–1031
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Katon W, Robinson P, Von Korff M, Lin E, Bush T, Ludman E, Simon G, Walker E: A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Gen Psychiatry  1996; 53:924–932
[PubMed]
 
Hunkeler EM, Meresman JF, Hargreaves WA, Fireman B, Berman WH, Kirsch AJ, Groebe J, Hurt SW, Braden P, Getzell M, Feigenbaum PA, Peng T, Salzer M: Efficacy of nurse telehealth care and peer support in augmenting treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Fam Med  2000; 9:700–708
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Marshall M, Lockwood A: Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; 2:CD001089
 
Scott JE, Dixon LB: Assertive community treatment and case management for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull  1995; 21:657–668
[PubMed]
 
Clarke G, Herinkx H, Kinney R, Paulson R, Cutler DL, Lewis K, Oxman E: Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized trial of two ACT programs vs usual care. Ment Health Serv Res  2000; 2:155–164
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Henggeler SW: Multisystemic therapy with juvenile offenders: an effective family-based treatment. Family Psychologist  1993; 9:24–26
 
Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2001
 
Clarke GN, Hornbrook M, Lynch F, Polen M, Gale J, Beardslee W, O’Connor E, Seeley J: A randomized trial of a group cognitive intervention for preventing depression in adolescent offspring of depressed parents. Arch Gen Psychiatry  2001; 58:1127–1134
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Institute of Medicine Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century: Speaking of Health: Assessing Health Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2002
 
Emmons K: Health Behaviors in Social Context, in Social Epidemiology. Edited by Berkman L, Kawachi I. New York, Oxford University Press, 2000
 
Truman BI, Smith-Akin CK, Hinman AR, Gebbie KM, Brownson R, Novick LF, Lawrence RS, Pappaioanou M, Fielding J, Evans CA Jr, Guerra FA, Vogel-Taylor M, Mahan CS, Fullilove M, Zaza S (Task Force on Community Preventive Services): Developing the guide to community preventative services—overview and rationale. Am J Prev Med  2000; 18:18–26
 
Fullilove MT: Anxiety and stigmatizing aspects of HIV infection. J Clin Psychiatry 1989; 50(Nov suppl):5–8
 
Alonzo AA, Reynolds NR: Stigma, HIV and AIDS: an exploration and elaboration of a stigma trajectory. Soc Sci Med  1995; 41:303–315
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Changing Practices, Changing Lives: Assessing the Impacts of the HRSA Health Disparities Collaboratives (RFA: HS-02–005). . nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HS-02–005.html
 
National Institute of Health, National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities: Excellence in Partnerships for Community Outreach, Research on Health Disparities and Training (Project Export) (RFA: MD-02–002). . nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-MD-02–002.html
 
US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Summary of Program Announcement 02003: Community-Based Participatory Prevention Research.
 
Minkler M, Wallerstein N: Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2003
 
Stokols D: Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am J Health Promot  1996; 10:282–298
[PubMed]
 
McKinlay JB: The new public health approach to improving physical activity and autonomy in older populations, in Preparation for Aging. Edited by Heikkinen E, Kuusinen J, Ruoppila I. New York, Plenum, 1995, pp 87–104
 
Schooler C, Farquhar JW, Fortmann SP, Flora JA: Synthesis of findings and issues from community prevention trials. Ann Epidemiol 1997; 7(suppl):S54-S68
 
Hornick RC: Public Health Communication: Evidence for Behavior Change. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002
 
Dijkstra de Vries AH, Roijackers J: Long-term effectiveness of computer-generated tailored feedback in smoking cessation. Health Educ Res  1998; 13:207–214
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Bull FC, Jamrozick K, Blanksby BA: Tailored advice on exercise: does it make a difference? Am J Prev Med  1999; 16:230–239
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Bandura A: Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1986
 
Ajzen I, Fishbein M: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1980
 
Rosenstock IM: Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Monogr  1974; 2:328–335
 
Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Evers KE: The transtheoretical model and stages of change, in Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3rd ed. Edited by Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2002, pp 99–120
 
Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK: Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3rd ed. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2002
 
Fisher EB Jr, Lichtenstein E, Haire-Joshu D, Morgan GD, Rehberg HR: Methods, success, and failures of smoking cessation programs. Annu Rev Med  1993; 44:481–513
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Compas BE, Haaga DA, Keefe FJ, Leitenberg H, Williams DA: Sampling of empirically supported psychological treatments from health psychology: smoking, chronic pain, cancer, and bulimia nervosa. J Consult Clin Psychol  1998; 66:89–112
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Tatelbaum R, Chamberlin R: Improving the delivery of prenatal care and outcomes of pregnancy: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics  1986; 77:18–28
 
Olds DL, Eckenrode J, Henderson CR Jr, Kitzman H, Powers J, Cole R, Sidora K, Morris P, Pettitt LM, Luckey D: Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect: fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA  1997; 278:637–643
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Ferguson T, Madara EJ: Health Online: How to find Health Information, Support Groups, and Self-Help Communities in Cyberspace. Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley, 1996
 
Street R, Gold W, Manning T: Health Promotion and Interactive Technology: Theoretical Applications and Future Directions. London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997
 
Hayaki J, Brownell KD: Behaviour change in practice: group approaches. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996; 20(suppl 1):S27-S30
 
Stead LF, Lancaster T: Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; 2:CD001007
 
Bowen D, Henderson MM, Iverson D: Reducing dietary fat: understanding the success of the Women’s Health Trial. Cancer Prevention Int  1994; 1:21–30
 
Sorensen G, Emmons K, Hunt M: Public Health Interventions Targeting Health Behaviors: Building on Research to Date. Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press (in press)
 
Sorensen G, Lando H, Pechacek TF: Promoting smoking cessation at the workplace: results of a randomized controlled intervention study. J Occup Med  1993; 35:121–126
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation Research Group: Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT), I: cohort results from a four-year community intervention, and II: changes in adult cigarette smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health  1995; 85:183–200
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Glasgow RE, Terborg JR, Hollis JF, Severson HH, Boles SM: Take heart: results from an initial phase of a worksite wellness program. Am J Public Health  1995; 58:209–216
 
Glasgow RE, Terborg JR, Strycker LA, Boles SM, Hollis JF: Take heart, II: replication of a worksite health promotion trial. J Behav Med  1997; 20:143–161
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Roman P, Blum T: Alcohol: a review of the impact of worksite interventions on health and behavior outcomes. Am J Health Promot  1996; 11:136–149
[PubMed]
 
Fox SA, Pitkin K, Paul C, Carson S, Duan N: Breast cancer screening adherence: does church attendance matter? Health Educ Behav  1998; 25:742–758
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Sorensen G, Stoddard A, Hunt MK, Hebert JR, Ockene JK, Avrunin JS, Himmelstein J, Hammond SK: The effects of a health promotion-health protection intervention on behavior change: the WellWorks Study. Am J Public Health  1998; 88:1685–1690
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Jackson C, Fortmann SP, Flora JA, Melton RJ, Snider JP, Littlefield D: The capacity-building approach to intervention maintenance implemented by the Stanford Five-City Project. Health Educ Res  1994; 9:385–396
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Dishman RK, Oldenburg B, O’Neal H, Shephard RJ: Worksite physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med  1998; 15:344–361
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Schneiderman N, Speers MA, Silva JM, Tomes H, Gentry JH (eds): Integrating Behavioral and Social Sciences With Public Health. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association Press, 2000
 
Goodman R: Principles and tools for evaluating community-based prevention and health promotion programs, in Community-Based Prevention. Edited by Brownson RC, Baker EA, Novick LF. Rockville, Md, Aspen, 1999, pp 211–228
 
Goodman RM: Evaluation of community-based health programs: an alternate perspective, in Integrating Behavioral and Social Sciences With Public Health. Edited by Schneiderman N, Speers MA, Silva JM, Tomes H, Gentry JH. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association Press, 2001, pp 293–304
 
Regier DA, Hirschfeld RM, Goodwin FK, Burke JD Jr, Lazar JB, Judd LL: The NIMH Depression Awareness, Recognition, and Treatment Program: structure, aims, and scientific basis. Am J Psychiatry  1988; 145:1351–1357
[PubMed]
 
Jacobs DG: Depression screening as an intervention against suicide. J Clin Psychiatry  1999; 60:42–45
 
Devault A: L’utilisation efficace des medias de masse dans des programmes de prevention et de promotion de la sante mentale. Can J Community Ment Health  2000; 19:21–35
 
Minkler M: Community Organizing and Community Building. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1999
 
Rothman J, Tropman JE: Models for community organization and macro practice: their mixing and phasing, in Strategies of Community Organization, 4th ed. Edited by Cox FM, Erlich JL, Rothman J, Tropman JE. Itaska, Ill, Peacock, 1987, pp 3–26
 
Israel BA, Schultz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB: Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Ann Rev Pub Health  1998; 19:173–202
[CrossRef]
 
Wallerstein N, Bernstein E: Empowerment education: Freire’s ideas adapted to health education. Health Educ Q  1988; 15:379–394
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Israel BA, Checkoway B, Schultz A: Health education through community organization and community building: a health education perspective, in Community Organizing and Community Building for Health. Edited by Minkler M. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1999
 
Minkler M, Wallerstein M: Improving health through community organization and community building: a health education perspective, in Community Organizing and Community Building for Health. Edited by Minkler M. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1999, pp 30–52
 
Wallack L, Dorfman L: Media advocacy: a strategy for advancing policy and promoting health. Health Educ Q  1996; 23:293–317
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Murray DM: Efficacy and effectiveness trials in health promotion and disease prevention: design and analysis of group-randomized trials, in Integrating Behavioral and Social Sciences With Public Health. Edited by Schneiderman N, Speers MA, Silva JM, Tomes H, Gentry JH. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association Press, 2001, pp 305–320
 
Charles C, DeMaio S: Lay participation in healthcare decision making: a conceptual framework. J Health Polit Policy Law  1993; 18:811–904
 
Goodman RM, Wheeler FC, Lee PR: Evaluation of the Heart-to-Heart Project: lessons from a community-based chronic disease prevention project. Am J Health Promot  1995; 9:443–455
[PubMed]
 
Green L, Mercer SL: Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities? Am J Public Health  2001; 91:1926–1929
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wallerstein N: A participatory evaluation model for healthier communities: developing indicators for New Mexico. Public Health Rep  2000; 115:199–204
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Heckman JJ, Hotz VJ, Dabos M: Do we need experimental data to evaluate the impact of manpower training on earnings? Eval Rev  1987; 11:395–427
[CrossRef]
 
Berk RA, Boruch RF, Chambers DL, Rossi PH, Witte AD: Social policy experimentation, a position paper. Eval Rev  1985; 9:387–429
[CrossRef]
 
Palumbo DJ, Oliverio A: Implementation theory and the theory-driven approach to validity. Eval Program Plann  1989; 12:337–344
[CrossRef]
 
Burtless G, Orr LL: Are classical experiments needed for manpower policy? J Hum Res  1986; 21:606–639
[CrossRef]
 
Rubenstein LV, Mittman BS, Yano EM, Mulrow CD: From understanding health care provider behavior to improving health care: the QUERI framework for quality improvement. Med Care 2000; 38(6, suppl 1):I129-I141
 
Shortell SM, Bennett CL, Byck GR: Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement on clinical practice: what it will take to accelerate progress? Milbank Q  1998; 76:593–624
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Blumenthal D, Kilo CM: A report card on continuous quality improvement. Milbank Q  1998; 76:593–624
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Simon GE, Von Korff M, Rutter C, Wagner E: Randomised trial of monitoring, feedback, and management of care by telephone to improve treatment of depression in primary care. BMJ  2001; 320:550–554
 
Rost K, Nutting P, Smith J, Werner J, Duan N: Improving depression outcomes in community primary care practice: a randomized trial of the QUEST intervention. J Gen Intern Med  2001; 16:143–149
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Schoenbaum M, Unützer J, Sherbourne C, Duan N, Rubenstein LV, Miranda J, Meredith LS, Carney MF, Wells K: Cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated quality improvement for depression: results of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA  2001; 286:1325–1330
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Durch JS, Bailey LA, Stoto MA (Institute of Medicine Committee on Using Performance Monitoring to Improve Community Health): Improving Health in the Community: A Role for Performance Monitoring. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1997
 
Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M: Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q  1996; 74:511–544
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Wagner EH, Wickizer TM, Cheadle A, Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Diehr P: The Kaiser Family Foundation Community Health Promotion Grants Program: findings from an outcome evaluation. Health Serv Res  2000; 35:561–589
[PubMed]
 
Daniels N: Justice, fair procedures, and the goals of medicine. Hastings Center Rep  1996; 26:10–12
[CrossRef]
 
Wells K, Miranda J, Bauer MS, Bruce M, Durham M, Escobar J, Ford D, Gonzales J, Hoagwood K, Horowitz S, Lawson W, Lewis L, McGuire T, Pincus H, Scheffler R: Overcoming barriers to reducing the burden of affective disorders. Biol Psychiatry  2002; 52:655–675
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
+
+

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Web of Science® Times Cited: 66

Related Content
Articles
Books
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Geriatric Psychiatry, 4th Edition > Chapter 32.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Geriatric Psychiatry, 4th Edition > Chapter 32.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Geriatric Psychiatry, 4th Edition > Chapter 33.  >
Textbook of Traumatic Brain Injury, 2nd Edition > Chapter 32.  >
Textbook of Traumatic Brain Injury, 2nd Edition > Chapter 32.  >
Topic Collections
Psychiatric News
PubMed Articles