Development of a measurement tool to assess local public health implementation climate and capacity for equity-oriented practice: Application to obesity prevention in a local public health system.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a measurement tool to capture local public health department (LHD) organizational characteristics that align with implementation of equity-oriented practice, which may be used to gauge progress in building public health structures and functions that address the needs of vulnerable populations and reduce health inequities. METHODS: We developed and tested a measurement tool, with practitioner input, based on an implementation science framework and informed by previous work defining public health essential services and practice recommendations for health equity. Measures assessed types of vulnerable populations served by the LHD, organizational climate, and four equity-oriented practice areas, including: assessment and planning, monitoring and analysis, leadership support, and obesity prevention. We also assessed opportunities for capacity building by identifying training needs of practitioners. Primary data were collected from Missouri local health department practitioners (n = 92, 80% response rate) via an online questionnaire, with a subset of the sample providing data for test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Measures of equity-oriented implementation climate indicated areas of variability with respect to strengths and gaps across LHDs. While implementation climate was strong with respect to perceived importance (86%), a substantial proportion of LHDs cited concern over other priorities conflicting with equity-oriented implementation (32%). Likewise, a strong internal push (67%) was often accompanied by limited external political (25%) and community support (40%). Implementation climate measures generally had good to excellent reliability and were significantly associated with areas of equity-oriented practice. Frequently identified (>70%) training needs included improving skills in applying frameworks, assessment methods, and evaluating collaborations around equity. CONCLUSION: We developed a theory-based, practitioner-informed questionnaire to assess capacity for equity-oriented practice and identify opportunities for capacity building in local public health departments to engage in effective change toward health equity.

Individual- and county-level determinants of high breast cancer incidence rates.

BACKGROUND: Age-adjusted breast cancer rates vary across and within states. However, most statistical models inherently identify either individual- or area-level determinants to explain geographic disparities in breast cancer rates and ignore the effects of the other level of determinants. We present a micro-macro modelling approach that incorporates both levels of determinants to better explain this variability and to discover opportunities to reduce breast cancer rates. METHODS: Individual-level data about breast cancer risk factors from eligible Arkansas Rural Community Health (ARCH) study participants (n=13,554) was supplemented with publicly available county-level data using a novel micro-macro statistical approach. This model uses individual-level data to account for aggregation-induced biases, to predict county-level breast cancer incidence rates across Arkansas. RESULTS: County-level breast cancer incidence rates ranged from 80.9 to 161.6 per 100,000 population. The best-fit model, which included individual-level predicted risk based on the Gail/CARE models, county-level population density (log transformed), and lead exposure (log transformed), explained 14.1% of the county variance. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support theoretical models that maintain that area-level determinants of breast cancer incidence are key risk factors in addition to established individual risks.

Development of a Survey to Assess Local Health Department Organizational Processes and Infrastructure for Supporting Obesity Prevention.

Local health departments (LHDs) have an important function in controlling the growing epidemic of obesity in the United States. Data are needed to gain insight into the existence of routine functions and structures of LHDs that support and sustain obesity prevention efforts. The purpose of this study was to develop and examine the reliability of measures to assess foundational LHD organizational processes and functions specific to obesity prevention. Survey measures were developed using a stratified, random sample of US LHDs to assess supportive organizational processes and infrastructure for obesity prevention representing different domains. Data were analyzed using weighted κ and intraclass correlation coefficient for assessing test-retest reliability. Most items and summary indices in the majority of survey domains had moderate/substantial or almost perfect reliability. The overall findings support this survey instrument to be a reliable measurement tool for a large number of processes and functions that comprise obesity prevention-related capacity in LHDs.

The role of researchers in disseminating evidence to public health practice settings: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based public health interventions, which research has demonstrated offer the most promise for improving the population's health, are not always utilized in practice settings. The extent to which dissemination from researchers to public health practice settings occurs is not widely understood. This study examines the extent to which public health researchers in the United States are disseminating their research findings to local and state public health departments. METHODS: In a 2012, nationwide study, an online questionnaire was administered to 266 researchers from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and universities to determine dissemination practices. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between dissemination to state and/or local health departments and respondent characteristics, facilitators, and barriers to dissemination. RESULTS: Slightly over half of the respondents (58%) disseminated their findings to local and/or state health departments. After adjusting for other respondent characteristics, respondents were more likely to disseminate their findings to health departments if they worked for a university Prevention Research Center or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or received their degree more than 20 years ago. Those who had ever worked in a practice or policy setting, those who thought dissemination was important to their own research and/or to the work of their unit/department, and those who had expectations set by their employers and/or funding agencies were more likely to disseminate after adjusting for work place, graduate degree and/or fellowship in public health, and the year the highest academic degree was received. CONCLUSIONS: There is still room for improvement in strengthening dissemination ties between researchers and public health practice settings, and decreasing the barriers researchers face during the dissemination process. Researchers could better utilize national programs or workshops, knowledge brokers, or opportunities provided through academic institutions to become more proficient in dissemination practices.