Benefit or Burden?: Evaluating a Collaborative Process of Creating a

Nutrition Education Program

Carrie Stehman, University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, Center for Urban Population Health

Anne Hahn, MPH, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Center for Urban Population Health

Courtenay Kessler, MS, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Center for Urban Population Health

David Frazer, MPH, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Center for Urban Population Health

Paul Hunter, MD, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Center for Urban Population Health, City of

Milwaukee Health Department

Overview

• Nutrition education at Mobile Markets• Evaluation of development of collaborations

– Methods– Results– Limitations – Conclusions

• Next steps

Introduction: Mobile Markets

• SHARE – Self Help and Resource Exchange• Milwaukee options: MM vs. grocery store• MMs: # and location • Current status of SHARE and MM

Intro: Nutrition Education Project

• Problems: Obesity, Food Insecurity• Goal: Increase consumption of healthy foods• Objectives: Community to guide evidence-

based interventions• Intervention: Develop nutrition programming

specific to needs of each of 4 sites• Structure: TAB, CAB, UW-Ex, Students

Structure of Collaboration

Technical Advisory

Board(TAB)

CommunityAdvisory

Board(CAB)

Evaluation (by students):• Consumer Surveys• Sales Data• Benefit and Burden of

Collaborative Process

UW-Extension Educators

Evaluation

• Objective: Evaluate how the project developed meaningful collaborations– Quality of partnerships– Impact of partnerships from project partners’

perspectives

Methods

• 17 face-to-face interviews – out of 19, 89.5% response rate

• April-June 2012

Interviewees

• 2 TAB members• 6 CAB members• 9 Other partners

• Nutrition educators• Implementation team members from the 4 sites

Methods

• Interviews conducted by one interviewer

• Transcription and analysis performed by interviewer and one independent reviewer

• Results coded, compared, and revised

• Consensus set of codes developed

• Emergent themes identified

Interviews

Questions asked:1. Value of the project

2. Project leadership

3. CAB/TAB structure

4. Communication

5. Project partnerships

6. Collaboration challenges

Results 1/6: Value of the Project

• Community- Academic Partnership

• Networking with other partners

• Benefit to Mobile Market consumers

TAB CAB

Results 1/6: Value of the Project

• Community- Academic Partnership

• Networking with other partners

• Benefit to Mobile Market consumers

TAB CAB

Results 1/6: Value of the Project

• Community- Academic Partnership

• Networking with other partners

• Benefit to Mobile Market consumers

TAB CAB

Results 1/6: Value of the Project

• Community- Academic Partnership

• Networking with other partners

• Benefit to Mobile Market consumers

TAB CAB

Results 2/6: Project Leadership

• 11 (64.7%) believed leadership was shared between 2 or more people/entities– Project Coordinators (10, 90.9%)– Principal Investigator (5, 45.5%)– Nutrition Educators (4, 36.4%)– Site Champions (4, 36.4%)

Results 3/6: CAB and TAB

• 12/17 (70.6%) commented on the CAB and TAB structure

• Strengths of Structure– Complementary areas of expertise– CAB and TAB included key players in Milwaukee

• TAB: health and nutrition education and research• CAB: service sites relevant to community

“I really liked that [the boards] were separate and they were brought together…Separate, equal, and parallel.”

Results 3/6: CAB and TAB

• Improvements suggested– Joint meeting with both boards toward the

beginning of project– More frequent joint meetings or representative

from one board at other board’s meetings– CAB should include more members of

communities served

Results 4/6: Communication•Communication with Consumers•Inclusivity:

– Bi-lingual English/Spanish education sessions– American Sign Language (ASL) Interpreters – Large-print documents

“Without any interpreters we would have been lost. It would not have been successful.”

Results 5/6: Project Partnerships

• Frequency and Openness of communication• Project coordinator facilitation• Expectations for implementation teams “I think that communication was very good and

everyone did what they said they were going to do… I felt like my opinions were valued, or considered, or listened to.”

Results 6/6: Collaboration Challenges

• Low attendance at some sites

• Site partners have limited resources– Time– Budget– Staff

• Not all staff familiar with logistics of program implementation

Limitations

• Interviewer affiliation with CUPH• Did not interview all partners

– 2/19, Both were community representatives• Findings not meant to be generalizable

Conclusions

• Burden… Challenges and Lessons Learned• Benefits to Partners:

– Networking with each other– Sharing resources and expertise– Sharing leadership– Working with new partners/communities– Community-Academic partnership

Lessons Learned• CAB should include clients of community

organizations as well as staff

• Find ways to compensate more partners for their time

• Ensure site partners have access to the resources they need – Staff training– Meeting room, childcare, interpreters …

Next Steps

• Current status of MM• Baldwin grant report• Partnership grant applications• Partners in place

– need the glue to put the pieces together

Questions?

Venue

• WREN• Wisconsin Health Improvement & Research

Partnerships Forum• Monona Terrace Community and Convention

Center, Madison, WI• 9/21/12

Speakers

Carrie Stehman• Center for Urban

Population Health• UW- Milwaukee• cstehman@uwm.edu

Paul Hunter, MD• Center for Urban

Population Health• UW School of Medicine

and Public Health• City of Milwaukee

Health Department• PHUNTE@milwaukee.gov