MCHB ALL GRANTEE MEETING

Six IOM Teams Present Highlights on

Critical MCH Issues and Recommended Strategies

October 4-7, 2004

JOAN WIGHTKIN: Good Morning! So, Wendy called Jane a “mensch” this morning and Jane’s wondering, is she getting insulted, and so I’m here to interpret: “Mensch” is in Yiddish, and I was never actually explained what it meant, but basically I always understood it to mean “someone who takes excellent, exceptional care of their family, friends and community.” So I’d have to say, this is a room of about eleven hundred mensches! So Wendy was right on time! The Pink Team addressed the IOM issue on Facilitating Communication Within Public Health Systems, and our facilitator for Team One was Kathy Hess and the recorder, Jan Ticks; for Two it was Mike Ambrose and Pam Vidisca; and for Three it was Eva Klane and Lori Ahmers, who really did an awesome job keeping everybody controlled and creative at the same time. Our first critical challenge was to address what MCH is and to develop a marketing plan that brands MCH to communicate the breadth of MCH activities from research to service. Our first strategy on this was to support discussions at the local, state, regional and federal level to define what MCH is: Who we are, how we see ourselves, how others see us, and what it should be in the future.

These discussions should include partners that are also working toward MCH goals, the broader community. The goal of this strategy is to assure buy-in from the entire MCH community. The next strategy for this critical issue was to develop marketing tools such as logos and messages. And we had one group that really used the word “sexy” a lot. So just appealing, sexy, slick way to communicate, much like the surgeon general talked about the tobacco industry does. So we need to have these messages that can be utilized by the MCH community at all levels. These should serve to unify, and to strengthen the MCH community and clarify to key audiences exactly what MCH does in its most broadest and comprehensive way. The third strategy for this critical issue would be that MCHB should support capacity-building for marketing at the state and local levels for MCH- and program- and service-specific messages and info. This could include training of the staff and dedicated resources similar to our SSDI program that help build capacity for data, to help build that same kind of capacity for marketing in all states for use by all grantees.

Our second critical issue dealt with the customer, the client, the patient. To improve customer and patient information and communication, the one-on-one contact from all levels and entities involved requiring a real picture of today’s family, use of family-friendly language and consideration of social impact of the message and cultural difference. The strategies to be used to get this going is to use family-friendly language in all one-on-one communication with the client. To use family liaisons to help develop the health messages and any one-on-one contact to first find out exactly what the client desires from the encounter and tailor the communication based on that. We need to seek out client input through focus groups and the use of incentives. Second strategy for that issue was to use electronic technology more for education and communication, including the use of computers, but understanding who does and doesn’t have access to computers. But looking at the wise use of cell phones to maximize the use of cell phones, through text messaging of appointment reminders, and other health information.

The third strategy is to use the same language in messages among what we call the triangle of MCH providers, the private providers and the client. And that MCH take the responsibility to assist the client and the provider with information about complimentary services and programs that would help both the client and the private provider. The third team talked about improving internal and external communication within and among state, federal and local MCH community; that we need policies that encourage communication and collaboration among grantees. The first strategy was to hold regional meetings and topical meetings that would draw local, state and federal partners, and of course to continue this broad base group here meeting once a year. The second strategy was to keep an updated list of the MCH grantees in each state on the website. This was distributed and we’d love to see that continued on a regular basis, to be updated on the website. To send electronic newsletters highlighting best practices and new grants. And to also include on the website acronyms, common jargon, and fact sheets for MCH-funded projects.

And the third strategy would be for MCHB to require communication and collaboration for any grant funded, and to include in that the sharing of data. Likewise, if states issue grants and contracts, to require communication and collaboration of MCH partners at the local and state level. I was also struck by how there was common themes throughout all six of our teams and the one that I put my three dots on I was really glad to see was addressed by some of the other teams, not my team, was about the social marketing of MCH and key issues like the surgeon general so eloquently talked about. But in the Pink Team, it was clear from the voting that folks were hungry for contact with other MCH partners. I think this meeting just wet their appetite. And I think its also clear that folks here, every single person wants a voice in defining the future of maternal and child health and to be equal partners regardless of whether they’re at the community-based level, university or any level of government. Thank you.