A scoping review of community health needs and assets assessment: concepts, rationale, tools and uses

BACKGROUND

Community health needs and assets assessment is a means of identifying and describing community health needs and resources, serving as a mechanism to gain the necessary information to make informed choices about community health. The current review of the literature was performed in order to shed more light on concepts, rationale, tools and uses of community health needs and assets assessment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the literature published in English using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PDQ evidence, NIH database, Cochrane library, CDC library, Trip, and Global Health Library databases until March 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 169 articles including both empirical papers and theoretical and conceptual work were ultimately retained for analysis. Relevant concepts were examined guided by a conceptual framework. The empirical papers were dominantly conducted in the  United States. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method approaches were used to collect data on community health needs and assets, with an increasing trend of using mixed-method approaches. Almost half of the included empirical studies used participatory approaches to incorporate community inputs into the process.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the need for having holistic approaches to assess community's health needs focusing on physical, mental and social wellbeing, along with considering the broader systems factors and structural challenges to individual and population health. Furthermore, the findings emphasize assessing community health assets as an integral component of the process, beginning foremost with community capabilities and knowledge. There has been a trend toward using mixed-methods approaches to conduct the assessment in recent years that led to the inclusion of the voices of all community members, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. A notable gap in the existing literature is the lack of long-term or longitudinal-assessment of the community health needs assessment impacts.

Realising the potential of health needs assessments

Population-level assessment and planning has traditionally been the role of public health departments but in establishing Primary Health Networks (PHNs), the Australian Government has instituted a new mechanism for identifying community needs and commissioning services to meet those needs. If PHNs are to achieve the vision of nimble organisations capable of identifying and addressing local health needs via integrated health and social services, several things need to occur. First, PHN funding schedules must become more flexible. Second, the Federal health department must maintain an open dialogue with PHNs, permit waivers in funding schedules to suit local conditions and be prepared to back innovations with seed investment. Third, health data exchange and linkage must be accelerated to better inform community needs assessments and commissioning. Finally, PHNs must be encouraged and supported to develop collaborations both within and outside the health sector in order to identify and address a broad set of health issues and determinants. By following these principles, PHNs may become leading change agents in the Australian healthcare system.

Health economics and health policy: experiences from New Zealand

Health economics has had a significant impact on the New Zealand health system over the past 30 years. In this paper, I set out a framework for thinking about health economics, give some historical background to New Zealand and the New Zealand health system, and discuss examples of how health economics has influenced thinking about the organisation of the health sector and priority setting. I conclude the paper with overall observations about the role of health economics in health policy in New Zealand, also identifying where health economics has not made the contribution it could and where further influence might be beneficial.

Assessing health care planning--a framework-led comparison of Germany and New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

With markets and competition dominating much of the debate on health care reform, health care planning has received little scholarly attention in recent years. Yet in many high-income countries, governments have continued to plan some elements of their health care systems. We use a new framework for analysing health care planning organised around the dimensions of 'vision', 'governance' and 'intelligence' to assess the approach in two deliberately contrasting countries, Germany and New Zealand.

METHODS

A review of the literature on health care planning in general and specifically in Germany and New Zealand, supported by key participant interviews.

RESULTS

Planning in both countries largely reflects the different institutional arrangements of their wider health systems. Planning in Germany is fragmented, in part due to federalism and corporatism, with separate approaches in different health care sectors and regions. In contrast, New Zealand's NHS-style health system favours a more hierarchical, integrated approach, with clear lines of accountability, and central government capacity to define objectives and monitor developments. Both countries find it difficult to use planning to align demand for and supply of health care though New Zealand makes some use of population needs assessments to support this process while these are currently absent in Germany.

CONCLUSIONS

While it remains challenging to compare health care systems that are institutionally very different, this new framework for analysing their approaches to planning draws attention to their advantages and disadvantages. It also generates an agenda for future research to improve our understanding of the role and effectiveness of different forms of planning versus, and in combination with, other policy tools to relating health care supply and demand.