Risk Factors Associated with Very Low Birth Weight in a Large Urban Area, Stratified by Adequacy of Prenatal Care.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined risk and protective factors associated with very low birth weight (VLBW) for babies born to women receiving adequate or inadequate prenatal care. METHODS: Birth records from St. Louis City and County from 2000 to 2009 were used (n = 152,590). Data was categorized across risk factors and stratified by adequacy of prenatal care (PNC). Multivariate logistic regression and population attributable risk (PAR) was used to explore risk factors for VLBW infants. RESULTS: Women receiving inadequate prenatal care had a higher prevalence of delivering a VLBW infant than those receiving adequate PNC (4.11 vs. 1.44 %, p < .0001). The distribution of risk factors differed between adequate and inadequate PNC regarding Black race (36.4 vs. 79.0 %, p < .0001), age under 20 (13.0 vs. 33.6 %, p < .0001), <13 years of education (35.9 vs. 77.9 %, p < .0001), Medicaid status (35.7 vs. 74.9, p < .0001), primiparity (41.6 vs. 31.4 %, p < .0001), smoking (9.7 vs. 24.5 %, p < .0001), and diabetes (4.0 vs. 2.4 %, p < .0001), respectively. Black race, advanced maternal age, primiparity and gestational hypertension were significant predictors of VLBW, regardless of adequate or inadequate PNC. Among women with inadequate PNC, Medicaid was protective against (aOR 0.671, 95 % CI 0.563-0.803; PAR -32.6 %) and smoking a risk factor for (aOR 1.23, 95 % CI 1.01, 1.49; PAR 40.1 %) VLBW. When prematurity was added to the adjusted models, the largest PAR shifts to education (44.3 %) among women with inadequate PNC. CONCLUSIONS: Community actions around broader issues of racism and social determinants of health are needed to prevent VLBW in a large urban area.

Evaluating a train-the-trainer approach for improving capacity for evidence-based decision making in public health.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based public health gives public health practitioners the tools they need to make choices based on the best and most current evidence. An evidence-based public health training course developed in 1997 by the Prevention Research Center in St. Louis has been taught by a transdisciplinary team multiple times with positive results. In order to scale up evidence-based practices, a train-the-trainer initiative was launched in 2010. METHODS: This study examines the outcomes achieved among participants of courses led by trained state-level faculty. Participants from trainee-led courses in four states (Indiana, Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas) over three years were asked to complete an online survey. Attempts were made to contact 317 past participants. One-hundred forty-four (50.9 %) reachable participants were included in analysis. Outcomes measured include frequency of use of materials, resources, and other skills or tools from the course; reasons for not using the materials and resources; and benefits from attending the course. Survey responses were tabulated and compared using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Among the most commonly reported benefits, 88 % of respondents agreed that they acquired knowledge about a new subject, 85 % saw applications for the knowledge to their work, and 78 % agreed the course also improved abilities to make scientifically informed decisions at work. The most commonly reported reasons for not using course content as much as intended included not having enough time to implement evidence-based approaches (42 %); other staff/peers lack training (34 %); and not enough funding for continued training (34 %). The study findings suggest that utilization of course materials and teachings remains relatively high across practitioner groups, whether they were taught by the original trainers or by state-based trainers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that train-the-trainer is an effective method for broadly disseminating evidence-based public health principles. Train-the-trainer is less costly than the traditional method and allows for courses to be tailored to local issues, thus making it a viable approach to dissemination and scale up of new public health practices.

Charting a future for epidemiologic training.

PURPOSE: To identify macro-level trends that are changing the needs of epidemiologic research and practice and to develop and disseminate a set of competencies and recommendations for epidemiologic training that will be responsive to these changing needs. METHODS: There were three stages to the project: (1) assembling of a working group of senior epidemiologists from multiple sectors, (2) identifying relevant literature, and (3) conducting key informant interviews with 15 experienced epidemiologists. RESULTS: Twelve macro trends were identified along with associated actions for the field and educational competencies. The macro trends include the following: (1) "Big Data" or informatics, (2) the changing health communication environment, (3) the Affordable Care Act or health care system reform, (4) shifting demographics, (5) globalization, (6) emerging high-throughput technologies (omics), (7) a greater focus on accountability, (8) privacy changes, (9) a greater focus on "upstream" causes of disease, (10) the emergence of translational sciences, (11) the growing centrality of team and transdisciplinary science, and (12) the evolving funding environment. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing these issues through curricular change is needed to allow the field of epidemiology to more fully reach and sustain its full potential to benefit population health and remain a scientific discipline that makes critical contributions toward ensuring clinical, social, and population health.