Data & Metrics
Welcome and Introductions
Kitty Bailey started the meeting by reviewing the agenda; workgroup members introduced themselves. Meeting summaries from the January and February Workgroup meetings were reviewed and accepted. Meeting summaries will be posted on the SD ACH website.
SDACH Workgroup Progress Update
Kitty provided an update on the activities and progress of the other SD ACH workgroups, highlighting the interdependence of the workgroups.
In reviewing the Portfolio of Health Promoting Interventions across Domains, also characterized by a high degree of interdependence, Kitty emphasized the need for data to evaluate the progress and success of individual interventions within this portfolio. The Workgroup was informed that the evaluators at the state-level (for the California Accountable Communities for Health Initiative) are currently working through these very questions of how to understand whether interventions are working. In addition, the Collective Action Workgroup has stressed the importance using metrics in order to choose programs for the Portfolio of Interventions.
The activities of the Sustainability and Wellness Fund Workgroup and the ACH investment strategy were discussed, with Kitty providing an overview of the nature of the potential investors in the portfolio. The SWF Workgroup is developing a value case in which they would like to use data and metrics to show that having an ACH improves wellness. The investment sources are projected to include philanthropy, private investments in the form of grants, and impact investing. Healthcare markets are currently being investigated, as is the potential for Medicaid to invest in the Wellness fund. Workgroup members suggested the Sustainability and Wellness Fund Workgroup consider conceptualizing the investment strategy not as a circle, but rather as a constant interplay between the stages in the process. Kitty noted that suggestions for reordering of elements of the process will be taken to the Sustainability and Wellness Fund Workgroup for consideration.
Presentation of Baseline Data for Long-term Priority Outcomes and Indicators
Kitty reviewed the priority outcomes and indicators previously agreed upon by the Workgroup (despite its acknowledgement that some data sources, such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) do have limitations). Nevertheless, given the options available, the group will move forward with these, while continuing to investigate innovative methods of obtaining data. Deirdre Browner, Senior Epidemiologist at the County of San Diego informed the group that BRFSS may not include County-specific samples in the future, and that she would investigate the situation.
Kitty displayed an overview of Baseline values for adults, teens, and children, comparing the San Diego County-specific data with values for selected indicators from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
The Workgroup requested that inclusion of intermediate values be considered (such as for BMI), as well as information on early stages of chronic disease, such as pre-diabetes. Fitgram data from the Department of Education may be used for calculating BMI for children and teens. Members noted that given the current values for the Access and Wellbeing indicators, it may be difficult effect large improvements in those health factors. The Workgroup will concentrate on intermediate outcomes data as a priority for obtaining meaningful information about the potential success of interventions moving forward.
Review Examples of Working with Portfolio Partners to Identify Partner-generated Short-term and Intermediate-term Outcome Data
Kitty discussed stages of ACH outcomes across different domains (short-term, medium-term, and long-term), highlighting the importance of data provided by partners, such as programs and data aggregators. The Collective Action Workgroup considers it vital to ask potential partners in the Portfolio of Interventions whether they are willing to share the data; the Data and Metrics as well as the Collective Action Workgroups must decide what specifically will be asked of partners.
Adrienne Markworth, Executive Director of Leah’s Pantry, provided an example of how partners within the Portfolio of Interventions might assist in providing data to evaluate the impact of their programs. Selected data sources applicable to the area of nutrition such as SNAP-ED (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education) data and the U.S. Department of Agriculture food security survey were identified, including an example of survey elements. Requirements set by evaluators were described, both by Ms. Markworth, as well as other Workgroup members in their description of related programs. Among new data sources being investigated are real-time point of sale (POS) data to understand the types of food being consumed in certain communities.
2-1-1 collects data on their callers such as whether they have a primary care provider. They recently launched an assessment tool to better understand client needs, and whether they are getting access to resources and social support. They are working on getting data back from providers as to whether referred callers access the services. They are partnering with social service agencies throughout the county. Sharp Healthcare is working with 2-1-1 to do a social determinants of health survey, including nutrition and food needs.
In discussing data on social determinants of health used by partner organizations, Workgroup members, considered potential opportunities in the near future to address metrics with their partners. The Workgroup will also consider requesting that organizations included in the Portfolio of Interventions collect particular types of data and/or use certain validated instruments in order to gather similar data across programs. This standardized set of tools and data elements can assist programs in demonstrating value. Workgroup members agreed that data should be systematically and routinely collected in order to measure impact over time.
Members also acknowledged that if the selection and monitoring of programs in the Portfolio are to be trauma-informed, attention must be paid to how the data is collected, and how it will be shared back to the community. A representative from the Collective Action Workgroup also expressed the desire for metrics to be established soon in order to facilitate the CAW selection of programs from a more informed standpoint.
Kitty initiated discussion of a planned survey that will ultimately be distributed to partners, who will in turn be asked to distribute it widely. The Data and Metrics Workgroup is therefore tasked with determining survey questions (including adequately communicating SD ACH values). The April Data & Metrics meeting agenda will include reviewing a draft survey tool.
In addition, Workgroup members discussed potentially establishing levels of partnership. Once an organization completes the survey tool, they are a partner. If they indicate on their survey that they collect data and are willing to share it, they would answer additional questions on a second survey to learn more about their tools and processes. We would also like to identify organizations who are willing to create new partnerships or offer technical assistance to others, whether in the same or a different sector. Organizations with strong data collection/evaluation processes, as well as those willing to partner with other agencies, would have a stronger partnership level (i.e. “Level 2 partner”).
Brainstorm Innovative Data Collection Opportunities
Workgroup members discussed opportunities for innovative data collection. Ideas included:
• Community Resident Activation Workgroup: Soliciting input from its members on what they feel is most interesting to collect at the community level
• Streetwyze: a data aggregator that collects walkability, childcare availability, neighborhood safety, and other neighborhood and community data
• Wearable devices: accessing data may assist in understanding trends in physical activity
• “Healthy retail” data: corner stores converting to POS systems may be able to provide information on most common purchases
• Social media data: San Diego State University currently has researchers working on social media who may be able to provide input
• Accessibility of locations to public transit: it may be possible to understand access to care and barriers using this type of supply-side data
The April Data & Metrics Workgroup meeting will include continued discussion of baseline data for priority outcomes and indicators, as well as discussion of a survey tool to distribute to potential partners in the Portfolio of Interventions.
Date and Time
March 27, 2018 12:30 pm
March 27, 2018 02:30 pm