Table 2 Contextual and team characteristics
Team A (Jan 10 – Jun 12) | Team B (Mar 10 – Mar 13) | Team C (Jan 11 – Dec 13) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Targeted issue | Occupational health | Student retention | Children experiencing vulnerability |
Justification for choice of issue | Service area featured residential neighbourhoods surrounding industrial areas. | Service area had a lower average of high school completion rate than the regional average. | Service area included many immigrant families who were poorly integrated because of language barriers. |
Formula | Bi-weekly meetings | Bi-weekly meetings | Bi-weekly meetings |
Intervention project developed | A health promotion counseling program to support business owners who were either setting up or relocating their operations | A health promotion outreach strategy to work with schools to promote the value of education among parents | Four intervention projects: increased access to daycare facilities for marginalized families; community network to promote breastfeeding; social support project for immigrant women; community childhood–family issues table |
Participants | Middle-managers (2), executive advisors (2, public health and nursing), nurses (3), community organizer (1), industrial hygienist (1), occupational health and safety physician (1) | Middle-managers (2), executive advisor on public health (1), school nurse (1), social workers (2), dental hygienist (1), community organizers (3), psychoeducator (1) | Middle-managers (2), executive advisor on public health (1), psychoeducator (1), social worker (1), nurses (2), dietitian (1), special educators (2), planning and programming officers (2) |
At least 15 years of work experience | A majority of participants | About half of the participants | About half of the participants |
Diplomas or work experience in public health | A few participants | No participant | A few participants |
History of collaboration | Participants had a long tradition of working as a team and, for the most part, already knew each other. | Team members were engaged for the most part in individual practice with clients and had not a long history of working together before the HPL. | Most participants knew each other and had a long history of working together. |
Activity sector and organizational support | Participants came mostly from the occupational health and safety division. This team has a subregional mandate assigned by the Occupational Health and Safety Commission to visit factory and businesses to monitor health risks and prevent harmful exposure for the workers. It was deemed easier for the organization to free up participants and reassign the work to others, giving the participants enough time to engage in the HPL activities. | Participants came mainly from the family/child/youth division. Professionals in this sector were primarily mandated to respond to the needs of the schools of the territory. The organization was not always able to exempt participants from their duties during the HPL because service demand was too high. | Participants came mainly from the child and family services division. Professionals were primarily mandated to offer counseling on nutrition, vaccination, education, children’s behavior and family life. They provided prenatal and postnatal support for mothers. The service demand was high and the organization did not always exempt participants from their duties during the HPL. |
Participant turnover | Average | Average | High |
Organizational learning culture | High access to documentation; budget cuts to continuing education | Limited access to documentation; budget cuts to continuing education | High access to documentation; university affiliation providing numerous opportunities of continuing education |