Journal of School of Public Health and

Background and Aim: In the past few years publications in the field of medicine have increased considerably in Iran and knowledge production in this country shows the greatest growth rate in the entire Middle East region. Considering the fact that 12% of all faculty members in the health and medical sector in Iran are employed by Tehran University of Medical Sciences, this university is regarded as the country's leading research institution. This study is focused on the behavior of the researchers in this university in terms of collaboration in research and factors that affect such behavior.

Materials and Methods: Our samples included all research projects in Tehran University of Medical Sciences that had obtained grants from inside and outside the university in 2004, had registered their contracts, had been finished by the time of this study (October 2006- March 2007) and whose final reports had been submitted (315 projects). The data collecting forms were filled for 301 files. The researcher's questionnaire was sent to the principal investigators of the projects and eventually 208 questionnaires were collected. We used the SPSS software package and the usual statistical tests (frequency ratio, chi square, analysis of variance and multiple linear regression with the Enter method) to assess the factors affecting the participation scores of individuals. Based on the data gathered from the forms, we used the UNICET software to analyze the 'cooperation network' between project directors and their principal co-workers and the relationship between different sections of the university.

Results: Only in 2.2 percent of the projects whose contracts were arranged in 1383 there has been some cooperation between the project director/principal coworkers and non-academic organizations. This ratio reaches 2.5% for collaboration with other universities. Among all projects, health system research programs show a better status of collaboration. Linear regression analysis showed that another important factor affecting the participation score is the "method for choosing the research topic". University-affiliated research centers only collaborate with the Schools of Medicine and Public Health, while in the School of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine all projects are defined within the School's own structure, with virtually no collaboration with any other sections of the university.

Conclusion: The present study showed that research programs in this university include little collaboration with organizations outside the university or with other universities. Part of this is related to the current structure of the research sector in the country, which is largely financed by the government with hardly any participation by the private sector. Current potentials within the University make it possible to embark upon joint research initiatives with other academic institutions. As the possible effect of intervention on health system research has been shown, policies can be implemented to promote effective collaborative research at university and national level.

Background and Aim:  Community assessment is a process by which a clear picture of the community assets, strengths, resources, and needs is obtained with active participation of the community itself, followed by prioritization of the community needs and formulating strategies and programs to solve the problems. This study was conducted to identify and prioritize problems and needs of the Azerbaijan Borough in Tehran city, Iran, with active participation of the people.

Materials and Methods: This study was conducted to determine the attitudes and beliefs of the community members about their community needs and problems. The study was based on a model designed in North Carolina, US. In this model, the assessment process is performed in eight steps.  In the first seven steps problems are identified and prioritized, and in step 8 a plan of action is developed to deal with the problem selected.

Results: A total of 40 problems were identified and divided into several groups. The most important problems were as follows: social problems environmental health problems educational and cultural problems, civil rights and urban services distribution and use of drugs lack of family counseling centers shortage of parks and playgrounds for neighborhood children lack of supervision by municipal contractors on urban cleaning and lack of mental health services specially for the elderly.

Conclusion: Several types of problems, including health, as well as non-health - social, cultural and economic - problems were identified. Community assessment provides an appropriate opportunity for active participation of community members and makes available sufficient information for sound decision-making. Thus, community assessment can be regarded as a suitable technique for identifying and prioritizing community needs.

Background and Aim: One of the main functions of municipalities, as a social institution, is providing, maintaining and improving health of citizens. Scattered attempts have been made with the objective of expanding equitable health service networks in cities, particularly suburban areas. The present study aimed at designing an integrated system for urban health managent center.

Material and Methods: This was a descriptive-analytical study. Based on the viewpoints of experts and relevant stakeholders, global evidence, national experience, and existing legislations, a conceptual framework for designing an urban health management center was developed and requirements for its implementation were determined. On the basis of the conceptual framework, regulations for designing model for a regional urban health management center (RUHMC) was prepared.

Results: The proposed model has 5 important characteristics which would provide an excellent opportunity as a response to the existing challenges of the health network in cities through active participation of the municipality, as a social institution, and other organizations:

                    1. Facilitating intersectoral collaboration, as against individual movements of the

 governmental health sector;   

2.   Defining and providing social health services and influencing the social determinants of health components;

3.   Providing active, rather than passive, services;

4.   Decentralization by forming a board of trustees and/or coordination council;

5.   Direct community participation in all phases, from decision-making (membership in the coordination council) to service provision.

Conclusion: Pilot implementation and evaluation of the proposed RUHMC model is recommended before expanding it to other parts of the city. In addition, it is essential that, before expanding the model to the other cities, the final regulations be examined and ratified by the High Council of Health and Food Security.