Lessons Learned From the Public Health Workforce's Experiences With the COVID-19 Response.

Limited research is available on the COVID-19 response experiences of local, state, and federal public health workers in the United States. Although the response to COVID-19 is still presenting challenges to the public health workforce, public health systems must also begin to consider lessons learned that can be applied to future disasters. During July and August 2021, a random sample of participants from a cross-sectional study of the public health workforce was invited to participate in interviews to obtain information on the current state of public health operations, the ongoing response to the COVID-19 crisis, and takeaways for improving future preparedness and response planning. Interviews were transcribed and inductively coded to identify themes. Twenty-four initial interview invitations were sent, and random substitutions were made until thematic saturation was reached when 17 interviews were completed. Four thematic categories were identified, including challenges related to (1) ongoing lack of political support or policy guidance; (2) fluctuations in, and uncertainty about, future funding and associated requirements; (3) job expectations, including remote work and data-sharing capabilities; and (4) the mental health toll of sustained response and related burnout. As the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic continues in its third year, it is crucial to identify lessons learned that can inform future investment in order to sustain a public health workforce and a public health preparedness and response system that is resilient to future disasters.

Epidemiology Surveillance and Capacity Improvement: A Characterization of Texas, 2017.

OBJECTIVES: In response to increasing caseloads of foodborne illnesses and high consequence infectious disease investigations, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) requested funding from the Texas Legislature in 2013 and 2015 for a new state-funded epidemiologist (SFE) program. METHODS: Primary cross-sectional survey data were collected from 32 of 40 local health departments (LHDs) via an online instrument and analyzed to quantify roles, responsibilities, and training of epidemiologists in Texas in 2017 and compared to similar state health department assessments. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent of SFEs had epidemiology-specific training (eg, master's in public health) compared to 45% in state health department estimates. For LHDs included in this study, the mean number of epidemiologists per 100 000 was 0.73 in medium LHDs and 0.46 in large LHDs. SFE positions make up approximately 40% of the LHD epidemiology workforce of all sizes and 56% of medium-sized LHD epidemiology staff in Texas specifically. CONCLUSIONS: Through this program, DSHS increased epidemiology capacity almost twofold from 0.28 to 0.47 epidemiologists per 100 000 people. These findings suggest that capacity funding programs like this improve epidemiology capacity in local jurisdictions and should be considered in other regions to improve general public health preparedness and epidemiology capacity.

A Qualitative Study of the COVID-19 Response Experiences of Public Health Workers in the United States.

The mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline, patient-facing healthcare staff have been described in several studies, but the effects of the COVID-19 response on the US public health workforce have not been well characterized. In early 2021, we conducted interviews with a subset of public health practitioners in the United States who participated in a cross-sectional survey and indicated their willingness to participate in a follow-up interview. An interview guide was developed to collect information about professional roles since the start of the pandemic, aspects of the individual COVID-19 response that impacted mental health, and aspects of the organizational/institutional COVID-19 response that impacted mental health, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of, opportunities for, and threats to public health professionals and organizations going forward. Interviews were transcribed and inductively coded to identify themes. Of the 48 people invited to participate, 24 completed an interview between January 28 and February 23, 2021. Five key themes were identified through inductive coding of interview transcripts: (1) teamwork and workplace camaraderie, (2) potential for growth in the field of public health, (3) considerations for adaptive work environments (eg, remote work, work out of jurisdiction, transition to telework), (4) politicization of response, and (5) constrained hiring capacity and burnout. After more than a year of public health emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critically important to understand the detrimental and supportive factors of good mental health among the public health workforce.

The impact of the COVID-19 response on the provision of other public health services in the U.S.: A cross sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Funding and staff formerly dedicated to routine public health tasks (e.g., responding to communicable and non-communicable diseases, investigating foodborne outbreaks, conducting routine surveillance) and services (e.g., environmental health, substance abuse, maternal-child health) may no longer be available in many public health departments due to the COVID-19 response. The objective of this study was to assess the extent to which staffing for essential public health services has been redirected to the COVID-19 response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study using a survey distributed through the Qualtrics platform. Individuals (N = 298) working in public health across governmental and academic public health departments in the U.S. during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic response were surveyed. Survey items measured multiple domains including professional experience (i.e., training, years of experience, content expertise, job functions, hours worked), mental and physical health status (i.e., generalized anxiety, depression, burnout), and career plans (i.e., pre-pandemic vs. current career plans). RESULTS: The total number of content expertise areas and programmatic functions covered by individual public health workers increased between January and September of 2020, with 26% (73 of 282) of respondents reporting an increase in both. The total number of respondents working in infectious disease and preparedness remained constant, while declines were reported in program evaluation (-36%) and health education (-27%) and increases were reported in disease investigation (+35%). CONCLUSIONS: The provision of many essential public health functions and tasks have been limited or eliminated while the U.S. public health workforce responds to the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings highlight opportunities for funding and professional development of public health systems, both during and after the COVID-19 response, to help ensure the continuity of essential public health services, staffing sustainability, and preparedness for future public health emergencies in the U.S.