Health Information Partnerships: Tribal/Library Collaborations

From Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
Tribal Connections Four Corners (TC4C) is a collaborative effort of four health sciences libraries and three regional medical libraries to provide services to health care providers in the tribal communities in the Four Corners states. The subcommittee  “Community-Based Partnerships” had a goal to develop a projects in the states that would result in increased access to health information for specific tribal communities. TC4C libraries partnered with community organization(s) in selected communities to develop, implement, and evaluate a program to improve access among health care providers and consumers to knowledge based health information. The libraries obtained commitment from one or more community organizations to work together on improving health information access and came to an agreement on their goal(s) and objective(s).
+
A geographic collaborative effort of four health sciences libraries and three regional medical libraries to provide services to health care providers in the tribal communities has been working together for a number of years. One of the group's subcommittees, “Community-Based Partnerships”, was charged with developing  projects in the states that would result in increased access to health information for specific tribal communities. The libraries partnered with community organization(s) in selected communities to develop, implement, and evaluate a program to improve access among health care providers and consumers to knowledge based health information. The libraries obtained commitment from one or more community organizations to work together on improving health information access and came to an agreement on their goal(s) and objective(s).
  
 
'''Issue:'''
 
'''Issue:'''
Line 7: Line 7:
 
'''Challenges'''
 
'''Challenges'''
 
*Distance from the communities the libraries partnered with was a challenge.  
 
*Distance from the communities the libraries partnered with was a challenge.  
*Distance on from each other
+
*Librarians faced challenged due to distance from each other.
*Funding came along with criteria that was challenging   
+
*Funding came along with criteria that was challenging.  
*IRB requirements of funding meant approaching several different institutions – the three universities involved as well as tribal government. this was challenging and time consuming and caused the projects to be put on hold
+
*IRB requirements of funding meant approaching several different institutions – universities and tribal governments all had different requirements. This was challenging and time consuming and caused the projects to be put on hold.
*Changing staff at libraries and at community organizations
+
*Changing staff at libraries and at community organizations meant starting from scratch sometimes.
*Tribes and universities are understaffed and busy making it challenging to meet face to face
+
*Tribes and universities are understaffed and busy making it challenging to meet face to face.
 
*Challenges in access to healthcare that the populations served faced presented challenges to us as a group: health information is not the first priority.
 
*Challenges in access to healthcare that the populations served faced presented challenges to us as a group: health information is not the first priority.
  
Line 18: Line 18:
 
The librarians met monthly to update each other on the progress of their projects and to share and brainstorm on challenges. Constant email and telephone communication with community partners and amongst the librarians helped move the project(s) along.
 
The librarians met monthly to update each other on the progress of their projects and to share and brainstorm on challenges. Constant email and telephone communication with community partners and amongst the librarians helped move the project(s) along.
  
Funding was received from the NN/LM MCR for travel, and project(s) costs. Internal support allowed for full participation in the NM project.
+
Funding was received from a regional medical library for travel, and project(s) costs. Additional internal support allowed for full participation in one of the projects.
  
Communities designed their own project which fit their communities CBPR model.
+
Communities designed their own project which fit their communities, using the CBPR model.
+
'''
We need to be clear from the beginning, distinction between outreach and research needs to be clear; Service Projects do not require IRB; surveys with post and pre tests require IRB – Time is crucial for research groundwork to be done.  
+
Lessons Learned:'''
 +
 
 +
*We need to be clear from the beginning what our goals are
 +
* A distinction between outreach and research needs to be clear;  
 +
* Service Projects do not require IRB;  
 +
*Surveys with post and pre tests require IRB – Time is crucial for research groundwork to be done.  
  
 
'''Evidence:'''  
 
'''Evidence:'''  
  
Three very different projects were developed:
+
Three very different projects were developed

Revision as of 20:42, 21 April 2011

A geographic collaborative effort of four health sciences libraries and three regional medical libraries to provide services to health care providers in the tribal communities has been working together for a number of years. One of the group's subcommittees, “Community-Based Partnerships”, was charged with developing projects in the states that would result in increased access to health information for specific tribal communities. The libraries partnered with community organization(s) in selected communities to develop, implement, and evaluate a program to improve access among health care providers and consumers to knowledge based health information. The libraries obtained commitment from one or more community organizations to work together on improving health information access and came to an agreement on their goal(s) and objective(s).

Issue:

How can a collaborative of librarians in four different states, from seven different institutions work over geographic and time boundaries to develop effective outreach efforts?

Challenges

  • Distance from the communities the libraries partnered with was a challenge.
  • Librarians faced challenged due to distance from each other.
  • Funding came along with criteria that was challenging.
  • IRB requirements of funding meant approaching several different institutions – universities and tribal governments all had different requirements. This was challenging and time consuming and caused the projects to be put on hold.
  • Changing staff at libraries and at community organizations meant starting from scratch sometimes.
  • Tribes and universities are understaffed and busy making it challenging to meet face to face.
  • Challenges in access to healthcare that the populations served faced presented challenges to us as a group: health information is not the first priority.

Actions:

The librarians met monthly to update each other on the progress of their projects and to share and brainstorm on challenges. Constant email and telephone communication with community partners and amongst the librarians helped move the project(s) along.

Funding was received from a regional medical library for travel, and project(s) costs. Additional internal support allowed for full participation in one of the projects.

Communities designed their own project which fit their communities, using the CBPR model. Lessons Learned:

  • We need to be clear from the beginning what our goals are
  • A distinction between outreach and research needs to be clear;
  • Service Projects do not require IRB;
  • Surveys with post and pre tests require IRB – Time is crucial for research groundwork to be done.

Evidence:

Three very different projects were developed

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox