Home > Promising Practices

Promising Practices

The Promising Practices database informs professionals and community members about documented approaches to improving community health and quality of life.

The ultimate goal is to support the systematic adoption, implementation, and evaluation of successful programs, practices, and policy changes. The database provides carefully reviewed, documented, and ranked practices that range from good ideas to evidence-based practices.
Learn more about the ranking methodology.

Submit a Promising Practice

Search Filters Clear all
(1159 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

Flex Your Power Case Study: City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability, Urban

Goal: The goal of these projects was to find ways to maximize energy conservation and efficiency through measures with a quick payback period.

Housing for Health Permanent Supportive Housing Program (Los Angeles County)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Economy / Housing & Homes, Adults, Urban

Goal: Housing for Health program goals are to improve patients’ health, reduce costs to the public health system, and demonstrate DHS’s commitment to addressing homelessness within Los Angeles County.

Impact: The average public service utilization cost per participant for the year prior to housing totaled $38,146; in the year after receiving housing, it totaled $15,358. When taking into account PSH costs, RAND observed a 20-percent net cost savings, suggesting a potential cost benefit of the program.

Quality Improvement Project to Improve the Immunization Rate in the Women, Infant, and Children Program (Reno County, KS)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Children's Health, Children, Families, Urban

Goal: The goal of this program is to increase the immunization rate of WIC children.

Impact: The WIC immunization rate for 2 year olds increased from 33% in the 3rd quarter of 2011 to 83% in the 4th quarter of 2012. The no-show rate for WIC appointments decreased from 68% to 27.6%.

Richland County Community Diabetes Project (Richland County, MT)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Diabetes, Rural

Goal: The goal of this project is to build community support for persons with Type 2 diabetes living in frontier Eastern Montana.

Sentenac Canyon and Cienega (San Diego County, CA)

Filed under Good Idea, Environmental Health / Wildlife, Rural

Goal: The goal of the acquisition of Sentenac Canyon and Cienega was to protect the land from development and preserve its wildlife habitats.

Sonoma County Tobacco Use Prevention (Sonoma, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Alcohol & Drug Use, Teens, Adults

Goal: The goal of the Tobacco Use Prevention program is to control tobacco use, reduce secondhand smoke exposure, and encourage smoking cessation.

Targeted Tuberculosis Screening in Tarrant County (Tarrant County, TX)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Goal: The goal of this program is to prevent the spread of tuberculosis among the homeless population.

Wisconsin's Coordinated School Health Program (Wisconsin)

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Adolescent Health, Children, Teens

Goal: The goal of this program is to reduce the prevalence of health risk behaviors among young people by creating healthy school environments that promote health and wellness.

WISEWOMAN Michigan (Lansing, MI)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Cancer, Women

Goal: The goal of this program is to reduce barriers to exercise and increase the likelihood that people will engage in physical activity.

Building Organizational Capacity to Advance Health Equity (Davidson County, TN)

Filed under Good Idea, Community / Governance, Racial/Ethnic Minorities

Goal: The mission of the Metro Public Health Department is to protect and improve the health and well-being of all people in Metropolitan Nashville.

Impact: Metro Public Health Department of Nashville/Davidson County has implemented department-wide strategies to address existing health inequities.

An Effective Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success and/or promise in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures of improvement in outcome of interest (i.e. increase in voter registration, not just delivery of voter registration drive) and/ or the outcome measure is increased or improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant.

A Good Idea meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program funding source, program implementation steps and outcomes.
  2. The program evaluation is limited to descriptive measure(s) of success/accomplishment (i.e., program participation rates, number of services/education sessions/radio messages provided). Note: oftentimes, the program has been newly implemented and a program evaluation has not yet been conducted. Programs that have not yet been evaluated, but which show promise in improving health or quality of life, are classified as Good Ideas until an evaluation is conducted.

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.
MiCalhoun