The Greater Lawndale Healthy Work project is a sequential mixed methods community based participatory research project that examines work as a structural determinant of health and builds community capacity for healthy work in a predominantly Black and Latinx community in Chicago known as Greater Lawndale (GL).
Objectives
We interviewed community leaders in GL as key informants to understand the barriers to healthy work and inform intervention development.
Methods
We conducted a directed content analysis of transcripts from 20 key informants and coded the social ecology and type of intervention.
Results
Every key informant mentioned at least one asset in GL, showing an opportunity to employ a capacity-oriented approach to intervention development. Key informants suggested a variety of interventions to address precarious work across levels of the social ecology, with individual and community level interventions being the most salient.
Conclusion
Through this approach, we were able to navigate tensions and challenges in conducting research for community-wide change. Key informant stakeholder interviews can be leveraged to meaningfully inform intervention development and support the development of multi-level, sustainable, and culturally acceptable interventions that advance health equity.
BenachJMuntanerCSantanaV. Employment conditions and health inequalities. In: Final report to the WHO commission on social determinants of health. Employment Conditions Knowledge Network. 2007; 1–172.
2.
SolarOIrwinA. A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. WHO; 2010.
3.
ClarkeARGodduAPNoconRS, et al.Thirty years of disparities intervention research. Med Care2013; 51(11): 1020–1026. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182a97ba3.
4.
BravemanPEgerterSWilliamsDR. The social determinants of health: coming of age. Rev Saude Publica. 2008; 42(4): 768–772. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101218.
5.
Moure-ErasoRFlumMLahiriS, et al.A review of employment conditions as social determinants of health part II: the workplace. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy2007; 16(4): 429–448.
6.
BenachJVivesAAmableM, et al.Precarious employment: understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014; 35: 229–253. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182500.
7.
KreshpajBOrellanaCBurströmB, et al.What is precarious employment? A systematic review of definitions and operationalizations from quantitative and qualitative studies. Scand J Work Environ Health2020; 46(3): 235–247.
8.
TompaEScott-MarshallHDolinschiR, et al.Precarious employment experiences and their health consequences: towards a theoretical framework. Work2007; 28(3): 209–224.
9.
BriefP. The world of work and COVID-19. International Labour Organisation. Published online2020. 8–10.
10.
TrochimWMCabreraDAMilsteinB, et al.Practical challenges of systems thinking and modeling in public health. Am J Public Health2006; 96(3): 538–546. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.066001.
11.
HebertJSarahBHernandezG, et al.Using community-driven, participatory qualitative inquiry to discern nuanced community health needs and assets of Chicago ’ s La Villita , a Mexican Immigrant Neighborhood. J Community Health2018; 43(4): 775–786. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-018-0484-2.
ForstLGrantAHebert-BeirneJ. Work as a social determinant of health; a landscape assessment of employers in two historically disinvested urban communities. Am J Ind Med. 2020; 63(11): 1038–1046. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.23174.
14.
MinklerM. Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100(S1): S81–S87.
15.
WallersteinNDuranB. The theoretical, historical and practice roots of CBPR. In: Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity; 2017, Jossey Bass. pp. 17–29.
16.
IsraelBASchulzAJParkerEA, et al.Review of community based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998; 19(1): 173–202. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173.
17.
CargoMMercerSL. The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annu Rev Public Health2008; 29: 325–350. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824.
18.
JoffresCHeathSFarquharsonJ, et al.Facilitators and challenges to organizational capacity building in heart health promotion. Qual Health Res. 2004; 14(1): 39–60. DOI:10.1177/1049732303259802.
19.
HackerKTendulkarSARideoutC, et al.Community capacity building and sustainability: outcomes of community-based participatory research. Prog Community Health Partnersh2012; 6(3): 349–360. DOI: 10.1353/cpr.2012.0048.
20.
IvankovaNVCreswellJWStickSL. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field methods2006; 18(1): 3–20. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X05282260.
21.
BeLueRCarmackCMyersKR, et al.Systems thinking tools as applied to community-based participatory research: a case study. Health Education and Behavior2012; 39(6): 745–751. DOI: 10.1177/1090198111430708.
22.
VelonisAJHebert‐BeirneJConroyLM, et al.Impact of precarious work on neighborhood health: Concept mapping by a community/academic partnership. Am J Ind Med. 2020; 63(1): 23–35. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.23055.
23.
Hebert-BeirneJFelnerJKBerumenT, et al.Community resident perceptions of and experiences with precarious work at the neighborhood level: the greater Lawndale healthy work project. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18(21): 11101.
24.
WHO. Constitution. World Health Organization; 1989.
25.
McLeroyKRBibeauDStecklerA, et al.An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988; 15(4): 351–377.
26.
HsiehHFShannonSE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005; 15(9): 1277–1288. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
27.
AssarroudiAHeshmati NabaviFArmatMR, et al.Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. Journal of research in nursing. 2018; 23(1): 42–55.
28.
SaldañaJ. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications Limited, 2021.
MorseJMJMBarrettMMayanM, et al.Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2002; 1(2): 13–22. DOI: 10.1177/160940690200100202.
31.
RusselBHRyanGW. Techniques to identify themes in qualitative data. Field methods2003; 15(1): 85–109.
32.
NastasiBKVarjasKSchensulSL, et al.The participatory intervention model: a framework for conceptualizing and promoting intervention acceptability. School psychology quarterly2000; 15(2): 207.
33.
BonneyTWelterCJarpe-RatnerE, et al.Understanding the role of academic partners as technical assistance providers: results from an exploratory study to address precarious work. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(20): 3903.
34.
Agurs-CollinsTPerskySPaskettED, et al.Designing and assessing multilevel interventions to improve minority health and reduce health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2019; 109(S1): S86–S93. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304730.
35.
TrickettEJBeehlerSDeutschC, et al.Advancing the science of community-level interventions. Am J Public Health. 2011; 101(8): 1410–1419. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300113.
36.
GreenhalghTJacksonCShawS, et al.Achieving research impact through co‐creation in community‐based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q2016; 94(2): 392–429.
37.
BenachJVivesATarafaG, et al.What should we know about precarious employment and health in 2025? Framing the agenda for the next decade of research. Int J Epidemiol2016; 45(1): 232–238. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyv342.
38.
McKnightJLKretzmannJP. Mapping Community Capacity. In: MinklerM. (ed), Community organizing and community building for health & welfare. Rutgers University Press, 2012; 171–186. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_102372.
39.
HeckmanJ. Varieties of selection bias. Am Econ Rev1990; 80(2): 313–318.
