Copy of Community Intervention

Community Intervention:

Fountain Valley

Amanda N. Blankenship, Merrill Peralta, Krystle Rivers, & Gabriela Ruiz

402L: Community Health Nursing Clinical Lab

Carla J. Marcinek, RN, MSN, PHN

California State University, Fullerton

Assessment

Statement of Problem

▪ While conducting our windshield survey in Fountain Valley, we observed many adults carrying bottled water with them.

▪ After experiencing the water tour in Fountain Valley, we became curious about whether or not residents were aware of the safety of their tap water, and the economic and environmental benefits of choosing tap water.

Nursing Diagnosis #1

Deficient knowledge among adult residents of Fountain Valley r/t lack of exposure to water regulation education, information misinterpretation and unfamiliarity with resources aeb residents verbalizing a lack of knowledge, and expressing inaccurate information regarding tap water.

Nursing Diagnosis #2

Decisional conflict among adult residents of Fountain Valley r/t unclear beliefs secondary to multiple and divergent sources of information aeb verbalized uncertainty about choices, vacillation between alternative choices, and verbalized questioning of beliefs.

Evidence-Based Article #1

Evidence-Based Article#2

Evidence-Based Article #3

Evidence-Based Article#4

CommunityResources & Agencies

▪ Orange County Water District

▪ Orange County Sanitation District

▪ 2015 Fountain Valley Water Quality Report

▪ City Website (www.fountainvalley.org)

▪ City of Fountain Valley Water Division

▪ Municipal Water District of Orange County

Identification ofCommunity Need

▪ Interventions to promote tap water that address:▫ Concerns about quality and safety▫ US regulations for tap water

▪ Public health education to increase the awareness of the impact of bottled water consumption on:▫ The environment▫ The household budget▫ Oral health

Planning

Background Info

▪ 1 class scheduled to implement the project▪ All 4 group members present to present to the

public▪ Presentation to be given at Mile Square Park

▫ large venue▫ many people with water bottles▫ stationed along the running path/ soccer field

Intervention Goals

▪ Clients to attend a tour at the OC Water District

▪ Clients to feel more comfortable drinking their tap

▪ Clients to increase in knowledge about where their water comes from

Group Rules

Private Group

Be courteous and respectful to all group members

Complete all tasks by the group-assigned due dates

Be encouraging to other group members and ideas

Contribute fairly to the group

Community Intervention

All members of the group must be present for the CI

Be professional as we represent CSUF

Only approach those that seem interested in our table/set-up

Do not approach runners!!!

Theories

▪ Constructivism▫ Knowledge and meaning from interaction b/w

experiences and ideas▸ Interacting w/ public and showing

evidence of bottled water/ tap ▪ Social Learning Theory

▫ People learn in a social context through modeling/ behavior of others▸ Avoidance of consumption via water

bottles during intervention

(“Most Influential Theories”, n.d.)

Content“Pepsi's Aquafina and Coca-Cola Co's Dasani are both made from purified water

sourced from public reservoirs, as opposed to Danone's Evian or Nestle's Poland

Spring, so-called "spring waters," shipped from specific locations the companies

say have notably clean water.” (“Aquafina Labels,” 2007, para. 4)

Content cont... Pre Pure Microfilter Rev. Osmosis UV Light H20 Delivery

How to BOOK A TOUR

Available tours: GWRS Tour (Fountain Valley)Groundwater Recharge Basins (Anaheim)Advanced

Water Quality Assurance Laboratory (Fountain Valley)Prado Wetlands (Corona)

Plan

AffectiveCognitive Psychomotor

Learning Domains

Cognitive

Comprehension

Analysis

Evaluation

Affective

Receiving phenomena

Responding to phenomena

Valuing

Psychomotor

Motor skills and movement

(“Domains of Learning,” n.d.)

Implementation➔ Prepared learning materials prior to implementation

day➔ Mile Square Park on a Sunday morning (heavy traffic

day)➔ Created an eye-catching board to attract people in

the park ➔ Table set-up with articles, video of OCWD, Fact-

filled brochures, & Water Tour info ➔ Approached people that looked interested and

asked them “Can we tell you about your tap?”➔ Educated the public in layman's terms about the

facility ➔ Encouraged Questions from the public

Evaluation

➢ To determine if our interventions were effective, we:

➢ Will contact the OCWD to determine how many tour requests they received from those referencing the Mile Square Park “Tap Group”

➢ Want our visitors to verbalize that they learned something new about the OC in regards to their water saving efforts

➢ Want our visitors to verbalize having greater comfort when drinking tap water

ImplementationLocation: Mile Square Park

Setup:

▪ Trust Your Tap board▪ Laptop with waste water purification process

playing▪ Brochure▪ Brita filter props▪ Water quality information▪ OC Water District tour information

Set Up in ACTION!

Community Response

● Interested in our topic● Receptive to our teaching● Willing to share the

information with members of the community as well as those in other communities.

● Information presented was unknown to the community○ Tap water is strictly

regulated○ Most bottled water is

actually tap water

“ I teach at North-West College, and I think this is great information to share with my students. I’m contemplating booking a tour for the class.

Flesch–Kincaid readability test

● designed to indicate how difficult a reading passage in English is to understand.

● Flesh-Kincaid grade level =7.9● Flesh-Kincaid reading ease=63.9

Brochure

Thomas, Hartley, & Kincaid , (1975)

Evaluation

Outcomes ofCommunity Intervention

▪ Spoke with 8 individuals at the park

▪ All 8 received pamphlets, while 3 took the time to watch OCWD informational video

▪ 2 stated they would be interested in booking an OCWD tour

Brochure had short sentences, vital info only, provided outside resources

Though video easy to understand, may have been too long for setting

Display board was eye-catching, used more visuals/diagrams than text

Props helped to explain information, showcased options

Tool Effectiveness & Health Literacy Level

Recommondationsfor Alternative Approaches

▪

▪ Blind Taste Test:

Tap Water vs. Bottled Water

▪ Pre-/Post-Test:

Tap Water Knowledge

▪ Group Lecture at different locations (e.g. Senior Centers, schools, businesses)

▪ Farmers Market booth▪ Media (Commercials,

advertisements, social media campaign)

#TrustYourTap

Barriers

Availability of passersby

Lack of promotion

Residents’ perceptions of our intentions at the park

Identify...

Facilitators

Location/Time

Good communication/Bilingual

Learning tools presented/utilized

Group Process

Enabled group members to work collaboratively to prepare and present the best & most pertinent intervention for the community.

Each group member utilized and contributed her strengths to the project.

Worked harmoniously to complete the project in a timely manner.

ReferencesAckley, B. J., & Ladwig, G. B. (2011). Nursing diagnosis handbook: An evidence-based guide to planning care (9th

ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

Aquafina labels to spell out source. (2007). CNN. Retrieved from

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/27/pepsico.aquafina.reut/

Domains of learning. (n.d.). Starting Point: Teaching Entry Level Geoscience. Retrieved from

http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/assessment/domains.html

Erp, B. V., Webber, W. L., Stoddard, P., Shah, R., Martin, L., Broderick, B., & Induni, M. (2014). Demographic factors

associated with perceptions about water safety and tap water consumption among adults in Santa Clara

County, California, 2011. Preventing Chronic Disease Prev. Chronic Dis., 11. doi:10.5888/pcd11.130437

Huerta-Saenz, L., Irigoyen, M., Benavides, J., & Mendoza, M. (2011). Tap or bottled water: Drinking preferences

among urban minority children and adolescents. Journal of Community Health J Community Health, 37(1),

54-58. doi:10.1007/s10900-011-9415-1

Lundy, K. S., & Janes, S. (2016). Community health nursing: Caring for the public's health (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA:

Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC.

References cont...

Merkel, L., Bicking, C., & Sekhar, D. (2011). Parents’ perceptions of water safety and quality. Journal of Community

Health 37(1), 195-201. doi:10.1007/s10900-011-9436-9.

Most influential theories of learning. (n.d.) Unseco Education. Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/quality-

framework/technical-notes/influential-theories-of-learning/

Saylor, A., Prokopy, L. S., & Amberg, S. (2011). What’s wrong with the tap? Examining perceptions of tap water

and bottled water at Purdue University. Environmental Management, 48(3), 588-601. doi:10.1007

/s00267-011-9692-6

Thomas, G., Hartley, R., & Kincaid, J. (1975). Test-retest and inter-analyst reliability of the automated readability

index, flesch reading ease score, and the fog count. J. of Literacy Res. Journal of Literacy Research HJLR,

149-154.

Thanks!Any Questions?