Library

Background: In 1997, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reviewed evidence of the effectiveness of HIV prevention programs for injection drug users (IDUs) and recommended that three types of interventions be implemented to prevent transmission of HIV among IDUs: 1) community-based outreach, 2) expanded syringe access (including needle exchange programs [NEP] and pharmacy sales), and 3) drug treatment. Progress on increasing the acceptance and feasibility of implementing these programs has been made at the national level, but their implementation has been varied at the local level. Objective: To study the acceptance and implementation of the three interventions by communities and to identify the factors that contributed to the success or failure of communities to implement these programs on the local level. 81: Forty-three in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with key informants in six U.S. cities. Informants included AIDS prevention providers, political leaders, activists, substance abuse and AIDS researchers, health department directors, and law enforcement officials. Cities were classified according to when they initiated interventions as 1) early adopters, 2) middle adopters, and 3) late or never adopters. Results: Conditions that facilitated or deterred the adoption of interventions were identified. Coalition building and community consultation were key to the acceptance and sustainability of new interventions. Leadership from politicians, public health officials, and program directors provided necessary authority, legitimacy, and access to resources. Grassroots activists took initiative and risks in the face of opposition, but often lacked the resources to sustain their efforts. Researchers played an important role in initiating interventions and legitimizing them by providing access to the scientific information supporting their safety and effectiveness. Successful implementers worked with or avoided the opposition rather than creating polarized positions. Changes in funding and structure of publicly supported drug treatment programs have limited the implementation of new programs. Lack of leadership in the political and public health sectors, and, indeed, fear of adopting or even discussing needle exchange because of perceived political opposition, were the biggest barriers to implementation of syringe exchange programs. Conclusion: Understanding the conditions under which communities accept and implement interventions can help guide effective strategies to foster the implementation of these interventions in areas where programs do not currently exist.

In an effort to equip community and institutional leaders from the health professions with the skills and knowledge to sustain community-campus partnerships, we are pleased to provide you with a copy of Partnership Perspectives-a magazine designed to foster greater awareness of critical issues impacting upon partnerships between communities and health professions schools. Partnership Perspectives is an informational resource drawing upon the diverse perspectives of leaders representing higher education, such as health professions institutions, 4-year undergraduate level universities and community colleges, health policy organizations, and civic groups. The purpose of Partnership Perspectives is to bring to the forefront the wide range of issues and perspectives that shape and influence the development of community-campus partnerships across the country. Partnership Perspectives brings to its readers a new look into the impact of partnerships and relationship building in our changing society. The goals of Partnership Perspectives are to:

• showcase thought provoking articles that address efforts to improve and promote community health, education and development through innovative approaches and best practices.
• promote a diverse range of multidisciplinary perspectives from within the community and educational sectors.
• advance new thinking and awareness about health and its connection to community and economic development.
•  highlight ways in which communities and educational institutions value each other’s assets and strengths to collaborate and improve community health together.
• promote the CCPH principles of community-campus partnerships