An environmental scan can be used to inform understanding of and decision-making which surrounds a health promotion issue or opportunity (Scaccia, 2024). In health care, a primary goal of environmental scanning is the design of programs and policies which are geared towards and incorporate the needs of specific communities (Graham et al., 2008).
Iterative processes of data collection and stakeholder engagement support the collection, organization, and analysis of various types and forms of evidence towards the presentation of meaningful conclusions, including evidence-based suggestions for interventions (Wilburn et al., 2016). When completing an environmental scan, researchers should aim for diversity in data collection (Scaccia, 2024). This accounts for and underscores the importance of both codified and tacit knowledge in processes of solution-making (Graham et al., 2008). A mix of both passive (e.g. casual review of existing sources) and active (e.g. in-person engagement) approaches to collection is ideal (Graham et al., 2008). Suggested methods for collection include review of recent, relevant literature and local (organizational) data, programs, and policies, online database and/or social media scanning, and the solicitation of stakeholder feedback through surveys, focus groups, and community conversations (Wilburn et al., 2016). Data collected should address a range of information, including demographic and health status information of the population of interest, underlying causes and health determinants that impact the issue, research and community evidence related to promising or effective strategies or programs, and community perspectives, including the felt or perceived challenges, needs, and preferences of those most affected. Completion of a scan should also provide decision-makers with a comprehensive understanding of internal and external factors that may impact action, as well as of current available resources and capacity gaps (Scaccia, 2024).
When completing an environmental scan, researchers may be challenged by information limitations, including availability of recent or relevant evidence, insufficient stakeholder engagement, or time limitations which prevent fulsome collection or review (Scaccia, 2024). Poor surveillance of the identified issue may also lead to generalizations or incorrect conclusions in research that counter community views (Heath & Levine, 2022; Martin Ginis et al., 2021).
An example of a rapidly conducted environmental scan to address participation of youth and young adults with disability (YYAWD) in physical recreation programs in Cambridge, Ontario can be found on the Artefacts page of this e-portfolio. The scan employed a passive approach to data collection, using primarily a review of available published research (within the last five years) as well as review of City webpages and publicly-available reports, imposing significant limitations. A future scan would aim to be far more comprehensive, using both passive and active approaches to data collection, including notably, the engagement of a variety of community stakeholders to accurately represent the needs, interests, and preferences of YYAWD and those in their support system, and inform improvements to City programs that are both meaningful and sustainable. If possible, a broad range of disability types would be represented so as to recognize and address a range of experiences, preferences, and challenges (Harrison et al., 2019; Kuijken et al., 2018). A more fulsome review of available literature would be included, as well as review of (local) policy and program data that might better inform assessment.
References
Graham, P., Evitts, T., & Thomas-MacLean, R. (2008). Environmental scans: How useful are they for primary care research? Canadian Family Physician, 54(7), 1022–1023
Harrison, J. D., Auerbach, A. D., Anderson, W., Fagan, M., Carnie, M., Hanson, C., Banta, J., Symczak, G., Robinson, E., Schnipper, J., Wong, C., & Weiss, R. (2019). Patient stakeholder engagement in research: A narrative review to describe foundational principles and best practice activities. Health Expectations, 22(3), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12873
Heath, G. W., & Levine, D. (2022). Physical activity and public health among people with disabilities: Research gaps and recommendations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 10436. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610436
Kuijken, N. J., Vlot-van Anrooij, K., van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk, H. J., Leusink, G., Naaldenberg, J., & Nijhuis-van der Sanden, M. W. (2018). Stakeholder expectations, roles and responsibilities in Dutch health promotion for people with intellectual disabilities. Health Promotion International, 34(5), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/day059
Martin Ginis, K. A., van der Ploeg, H. P., Foster, C., Lai, B., McBride, C. B., Ng, K., Pratt, M., Shirazipour, C. H., Smith, B., Vásquez, P. M., & Heath, G. W. (2021). Participation of people living with disabilities in physical activity: A global perspective. The Lancet, 398(10298), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01164-8
Scaccia, J. (2024, February 12). How to conduct an environmental scan: A guide for public health practitioners. This Week in Public Health. https://thisweekinpublichealth.com/blog/2024/02/12/how-to-conduct-an-environmental-scan-a-guide-for-public-health-practitioners/
Wilburn, A., Vanderpool, R. C., & Knight, J. R. (2016). Environmental scanning as a public health tool: Kentucky's human papillomavirus vaccination project. Preventing Chronic Disease, 13. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160165
Comments