CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 180Community Health and DevelopmentPublic Health Policies and EducationHealthcare Policy and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evidence that collaborative action between local health departments and nonprofit hospitals helps foster healthy behaviors in communities: a multilevel study

Open access
Cramer, Geri Rosen, Young, Gary J., Singh, Simone, McGuire, Jean, Kim, Daniel·2021·BMC Health Services Research
DOI 10.1186/s12913-020-05996-8PMC PMC7777410
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) encouraged nonprofit hospitals to collaborate with local public health experts in the conduct of community health needs assessments (CHNAs) for the larger goal of improving community health. Yet, little is known about whether collaborations between local health departments and hospitals may be beneficial to community health. In this study, we investigated whether individuals residing in communities with stronger collaboration between nonprofit hospitals and local public health departments (LHDs) reported healthier behaviors. We further explored whether social capital acts as a moderating factor of these relationships. Methods: We used multilevel cross-sectional models, controlling for both individual and community-level factors to explore LHD-hospital collaboration (measured in the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) Forces of Change Survey), in relation to individual-level health behaviors in 56,826 adults living in 32 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, captured through the 2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) SMART dataset. Nine health behaviors were examined including vigorous exercise, eating fruits and vegetables, smoking and binge drinking. Social capital, measured using an index developed by the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, was also explored as an effect modifier of these relationships. Results: Stronger collaboration between nonprofit hospitals and LHDs was associated with not smoking (odds ratio, OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58), eating vegetables daily (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.57), and vigorous exercise (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.30). The presence of higher social capital also strengthened the relationships between LHD-hospital collaborations and wearing a seatbelt (p for interaction = 0.01) and general exercise (p for interaction = 0.03). Conclusions: Stronger collaboration between nonprofit hospitals and LHDs was positively associated with healthier individual-level behaviors. Social capital may also play a moderating role in improving individual and population health.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12913-020-05996-8

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 A Modified BARHII Public Health Framework for Reducing Health Inequities [13] (adapted)
Fig. 1 A Modified BARHII Public Health Framework for Reducing Health Inequities [13] (adapted)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 A Map of Included Communities and their Social Capital Index Values [35]. Permission was received to use and adapt the copyrighted image
Fig. 2 A Map of Included Communities and their Social Capital Index Values [35]. Permission was received to use and adapt the copyrighted imageCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. County Health Rankings Key Findings 2018. 2018. Available at: https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/resources/2018-county-health-rankings-key-findings-report. Accessed on May 18, 2020.
  2. Trust for America’s Health. The Impact of Chronic Underfunding of America’s Public Health System: Trends, Risks, and Recommendations, 2019. 2019. Available at: https://www.tfah.org/report-details/2019-funding-report/. Accessed on: May 18, 2020.
  3. United States Government. An Act Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In: Department of Health and Human Services, ed. Obama Care Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O.; 2010.
  4. Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII). A Public Health Framework for Reducing Health Inequities. 2015; http://barhii.org/framework/. Accessed August 3, 2018.
  5. Mattessich P, Monsey B. Community building: what makes it work. St. Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation; 1997.
  6. Providence Alaska Medical Center. Anchorage Community Health Needs Assessment. 2015. Available at: https://www.psjhealth.org/-/media/files/providence-st-joseph-health/community-benefit/ak/2015chnaandchipprovidencealaskamedicalcenter.pdf?la=en. Published: 2015.
  7. National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO). About. 2019; https://www.naccho.org/about. Accessed June 10, 2019.
  8. National Association of County and City Health Officials. Forces of Change Survey. 2015. http://nacchoprofilestudy.org/forces-of-change/2015-forces-of-change/.
  9. Hilltop Institute. Community benefit state law profiles. Baltimore: University of Maryland; 2013. https://hilltopinstitute.org/our-work/hospital-community-benefit/hcbp-state-comparison/.
  10. Chaudhary KR, Schreiber-Gregory DN. Multiple Imputation for Arbitrary Missing Data: SAS® and R. Available at: https://www.mwsug.org/proceedings/2015/TT/MWSUG-2015-TT-04.pdf. Published: 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cramer, G. R., Young, G. J., Singh, S., McGuire, J., & Kim, D.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Kim, Daniel
ORCID
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-01-02
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
1-1
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12913-020-05996-8
PMC
PMC7777410
OpenAlex
W3119111511
Cited by
179
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 12
FWCI
34.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Michigan Library
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Community Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
local health departments, nonprofit hospitals, community health needs assessment, social capital, health behavior, smoking, fruit and vegetable intake, physical activity, seat belt use, binge drinking, Affordable Care Act, community health
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Hospitals, Humans, Organizations, Nonprofit, Public Health, United States, Health Behavior, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review