Making Strides Toward Health Equity: The Experiences of Public Health Departments

Challenges and Supports for Implementing Health Equity During National Accreditation Among Small Local Health Departments in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This article focuses on supports and challenges to health equity that small local health departments (LHDs) experienced while working toward national reaccreditation or Pathways Recognition with the Public Health Accreditation Board's Standards & Measures Version 2022 (PHAB S&M v2022).

DESIGN

The study team conducted 22 qualitative interview sessions with members of health department leadership teams.

SETTING

In the spring of 2024, participants from 4 small LHDs in the western and midwestern regions of the United States participated in individual remote interview sessions.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were members of leadership teams in LHDs with population jurisdictions less than 50 000.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Common challenges relating to the health equity measures in the PHAB S&M v2022 included external influences on equity language; lack of small population data; and racially and ethnically homogeneous populations and staff. The main support was the national equity standards provided justification for pursuing equity work.

RESULTS

Strategies to overcome challenges associated with the equity measures included staff training, seeking alternative equity language, and examining socioeconomic inequities in addition to race and ethnicity. Internal workforce understanding of health equity was improved through department-wide training initiatives. When working under restrictive language requirements for state agencies, grants, and other funding sources, staff suggested using alternative phrases and keywords such as level playing field and equal access . When addressing racially and ethnically homogenous populations, staff pursued equity in terms of income and focused on those living with pre-existing conditions (ie, diabetes).

CONCLUSIONS

Ensuring that LHDs can work toward health equity is crucial for reducing health inequities. While the equity focus of PHAB S&M v2022 proved challenging, for this selection of LHDs, participants affirmed that PHAB accreditation allowed them to solidify their equity work to better serve their communities.

The Use of the CDC Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant to Address Social Determinants of Health to Advance Health Equity

OBJECTIVE

State public health departments use federal funding to examine and address social determinants of health (SDOH) within their communities to improve health and advance health equity. Yet, most federal funding is categorical (ie, funding used for a specific program or narrow purpose), which can create barriers to addressing social and structural drivers of inequity. The Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant (PHHS Block Grant) is a flexible funding mechanism that provides health departments the latitude to identify and fund initiatives that address local public health needs. It is unclear, however, to what extent health departments use this flexible resource to incorporate SDOH into their programs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, descriptive analysis of state health department PHHS Block Grant program administrative data.

SETTING

This study examined PHHS Block Grant budgets and workplans for the federal Fiscal Year 2021 to assess whether state health departments aligned their grant-funded program with the national objectives associated with the Healthy People 2030 SDOH Framework.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia were included in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Percent of states that used PHHS Block Grant funds to address SDOH; proportion of funding allocated to address SDOH; percentage of programs that addressed SDOH.

RESULTS

Three-fourths (75%) of states allocated funds to 97 programs aligning with at least 1 Healthy People 2030 SDOH-related objective. Fifty of the programs were fully or primarily funded by the PHHS Block Grant. Results also show that as the states' PHHS Block Grant funding level increased so did the percent of states that allocated funding toward SDOH programs.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that state health departments are using the PHHS Block Grant to address SDOH, and that the grant plays an important funding role for these programs. States are incorporating the grant into their funding strategies to address SDOH.

Racial Health Equity Plans in the 30 Largest US Cities

BACKGROUND

Racial inequities in life expectancy vary significantly across US cities, with city-level gaps ranging from zero to more than 10 years. Given that these inequities are rooted in racism and maintained through social structures and policies, population-level solutions are needed. Local health departments (LHD) are well-situated to lead these types of changes.

METHODS

We conducted an environmental scan and document review of formal health plans of the LHDs with jurisdictions covering the 30 most populous US cities. We assessed the inclusion of equity priorities and specific and measurable equity goals. Secondary outcomes related to organizational structures, data, formal declarations, and other practices were also assessed. Data were collected between January and August 2022.

RESULTS

The extent of focus on racial equity in the identified strategic health plans varied. Less than half of the cities with a formal public health plan (13 of 29) listed racial health equity as an area of focus. Only seven cities (all of which had a health plan focusing on racial health equity) had specific goals related to racial health equity. Twenty-five LHDs provided local data on racial health inequities. All but seven cities had declared racism a public health crisis. About half of the LHDs had positions or divisions focused on racial equity, or specified equity as an area of focus for Covid-19 efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal that few large cities translate growing support for anti-racism into their formal planning. While most LHDs acknowledge (and provide data pointing to) gaps in racial health equity in their jurisdictions, more attention is needed to incorporate specific and measurable racial health equity goals into strategic plans, and provide adequate structure and resources to attain those goals.

Equity Work Among Accredited Health Departments in the United States, 2015-2021

OBJECTIVES

Minimal research has examined the number of health departments conducting work related to equity and/or the kind of work, if any, they are conducting. We examined the relationship between public health accreditation and work related to health equity by analyzing accredited health departments' responses to a prompt in the Public Health Accreditation Board's (PHAB's) annual report.

METHODS

We analyzed self-reported responses from accredited health departments to questions about emerging public health issues and innovations in PHAB's annual report. We identified themes using a priori and inductive coding.

RESULTS

A total of 316 health departments submitted an annual report from January 2015 through December 2021. Of those health departments, 283 (89.6%) stated in their annual report that they engaged in work related to health equity, 50 (17.7%) of which provided a narrative about this work. Of those 50 health departments, the most common theme reported was community partnership, described by 23 (46.0%) health departments. The next most reported themes were COVID-19 vaccine access for racially or socioeconomically marginalized communities (n = 17, 34.0%) and programs related to health equity (n = 16, 32.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that most accredited health departments conduct work related to health equity. Further research is needed to examine characteristics that influence a health department's likelihood of conducting equity work. Models and resources on how health departments, particularly small health departments, can begin equity work would be valuable.

Characterizing Organizational Health Equity Capacity Assessments for Public Health Organizations: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Organizational health equity capacity assessments (OCAs) provide a valuable starting point to understand and strengthen an organization's readiness and capacity for health equity. We conducted a scoping review to identify and characterize existing OCAs.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases and practitioner websites to identify peer-reviewed and gray literature articles and tools that measure or assess health equity-related capacity in public health organizations. Seventeen OCAs met the inclusion criteria. We organized primary OCA characteristics and implementation evidence and described them thematically according to key categories.

RESULTS

All identified OCAs assessed organizational readiness or capacity for health equity, and many aimed to guide health equity capacity development. The OCAs differed in regard to thematic focus, structure, and intended audience. Implementation evidence was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

By providing a synthesis of OCAs, these findings can assist public health organizations in selecting and implementing OCAs to assess, strengthen, and monitor their internal organizational capacity for health equity. This synthesis also fills a knowledge gap for those who may be considering developing similar tools in the future.

Developing and Implementing Racial Health Equity Plans in Four Large US Cities: A Qualitative Study

CONTEXT

Local health departments (LHDs) and their partners are critical components of the fight for racial health equity, particularly given the variation in levels of, and pathways to, inequities at the local level.

OBJECTIVE

To inform continued progress in this area, we qualitatively examined the development and implementation of equity-related plans and initiatives of LHDs within 4 large US cities: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

DESIGN AND MEASURES

We conducted 15 semistructured interviews with 21 members of LHDs, academic institutions, health systems, and community-based organizations involved with health equity strategies or activities in their respective cities. Outcomes included perceptions of the effectiveness of the local health equity plan, participation in other equity-related initiatives, stakeholder engagement, and best practices.

RESULTS

We contacted 49 individuals, of whom 2 declined and 21 accepted our interview invitation. Recruitment was stopped after we reached saturation. Thematic analysis identified 5 themes across interviews: (1) organizations were flexible in reallocating resources to address racial and health equity; (2) multidisciplinary teams are necessary for effective development and implementation of health equity plans; (3) community collaboration is required for meaningful and sustainable change; (4) there is a direct relationship between racism, structural inequities, and health outcomes; and (5) health departments have prioritized health equity plan development, but further work is required to address root causes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, health departments have begun to develop and implement strategic health plans focused on equity. However, the extent to which these plans result in actual initiatives (both internal and external) varied across cities. The current study increases our understanding of how different partners are working to implement structural changes, programs, and policies to reach equity-related goals in our largest urban areas, providing valuable insight for urban health advocates across the country.

Understanding Health Equity in Public Health Practice in the United States

CONTEXT

Understanding the extent to which equity-focused work is occurring in public health departments (eg, in chronic disease programs) can identify areas of success and what is needed to move the needle on health equity.

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to characterize the patterns and correlates of equity-related practices in US state and territorial public health practice.

DESIGN

The design was a multimethod (quantitative and qualitative), cross-sectional study.

SETTING

The setting included US state and territorial public health departments.

PARTICIPANTS

Chronic disease prevention practitioners (N = 600) completed self-report surveys in July 2022 through August 2022 (analyzed in September 2022 through December 2022).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Health equity data were obtained across 4 domains: (1) staff skills, (2) work unit practices, (3) organizational priorities and values, and (4) partnerships and networks.

RESULTS

There was a wide range in self-reported performance across the health equity variables. The highest values (those agreeing and strongly agreeing) were related to staff skills (eg, the ability to describe the causes of inequities [82%]). Low agreement was reported for multiple items, indicating the lack of systems for tracking progress on health equity (32%), the lack of hiring of staff members who represent disadvantaged communities (33%), and limited use of principles for community engagement (eg, sharing decision-making authority with partners [34%]). Qualitative data provided tangible examples showing how practitioners and their agencies are turning an array of health equity concepts into actions.

CONCLUSIONS

There is urgency in addressing health equity and our data suggest considerable room for enhancing health equity practices in state and territorial public health. To support these activities, our findings provide some of the first information on areas of progress, gaps in practice, and where to target technical assistance, capacity building efforts, and accreditation planning.

Awareness of and Confidence to Address Equity-Related Concepts Across the US Governmental Public Health Workforce

OBJECTIVE

To assess the governmental public health (GPH) workforce's awareness of and confidence to address health equity , social determinants of health ( SDoH ), and social determinants of equity ( SDoE ) in their work.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A nationally representative population of US local and state GPH employees (n = 41 890) were surveyed through the 2021 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey (PH WINS 2021).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported awareness and confidence were explored by self-identified racial and ethnic group identity, public health degree attainment, and supervisory status.

RESULTS

GPH employees reported higher levels of awareness across concepts ( health equity -71%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 70.5-71.6; SDoH -62%, 95% CI: 62.3-63.5; SDoE -48%, 95% CI: 47.2-48.4) than confidence ( health equity -48%, 95% CI: 47.8-49.0; SDoH -46%, 95% CI: 45.4-46.7; SDoE -34%, 95% CI: 33.4-34.6). Self-identified Black or African American employees reported higher confidence across all concepts ( health equity -56%, 95% CI: 54.3-57.6; SDoH -52%, 95% CI: 50.8-54.1; SDoE -43%, 95% CI: 41.3-44.6) compared to other self-identified racial groups. Employees with a PH degree reported higher confidence across all concepts ( health equity -65%, 95% CI: 63.8-68.8; SDoH -73%, 95% CI: 71.3-74.1; SDoE -39%, 95% CI: 36.9-40.1) compared with employees without a PH degree ( health equity -45%, 95% CI: 44.8-46.1; SDoH -41%, 95% CI: 40.6-41.9; SDoE -33%, 95% CI: 32.6-33.8). We found an inverse relationship between supervisory status and confidence to address SDoE : Nonsupervisors reported higher confidence (35%, 95% CI: 29.2-31.9) than supervisors (31%, 95% CI: 29.2-31.9), managers (31%, 95% CI: 28.8-32.6), and executives (32%, 95% CI: 27.5-34.4).

CONCLUSION

PH WINS 2021 reveals that GPH employees are aware of equity-related concepts but lack confidence to address them. Public health agencies should build employees' confidence by prioritizing and operationalizing equity internally and externally in collaboration with communities and partners.

How Do We Define and Measure Health Equity? The State of Current Practice and Tools to Advance Health Equity

INTRODUCTION

Healthy People establishes national goals and specific measurable objectives to improve the health and well-being of the nation. An overarching goal of Healthy People 2030 is to "eliminate health disparities, achieve health equity, and attain health literacy to improve the health and well-being of all." To inform Healthy People 2030 health equity and health disparities content and products, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), in collaboration with NORC at the University of Chicago, conducted a review of peer-reviewed and gray literature to examine how health equity is defined, conceptualized, and measured by public health professionals.

METHODS

We reviewed (1) peer-reviewed literature, (2) HHS and other public health organization Web sites, and (3) state and territorial health department plans. We also conducted targeted searches of the gray literature to identify tools and recommendations for measuring health equity.

RESULTS

While definitions of health equity identified in the scan varied, they often addressed similar concepts, including "highest level of health for all people," "opportunity for all," and "absence of disparities." Measuring health equity is challenging; however, strategies to measure and track progress toward health equity have emerged. There are a range of tools and resources that have the potential to help decision makers address health equity, such as health impact assessments, community health improvement plans, and adapting a Health in All Policies approach. Tools that visualize health equity data also support data-driven decision making.

DISCUSSION

Using similar language when discussing health equity will help align and advance efforts to improve health and well-being for all. Healthy People objectives, measures, and targets can help public health professionals advance health equity in their work. HHS ODPHP continues to develop Healthy People tools and resources to support public health professionals as they work with cross-sector partners to achieve health equity.

A multisectoral approach to advance health equity in rural northern Arizona: county-level leaders' perspectives on health equity

BACKGROUND

Multisectoral and public-private partnerships are critical in building the necessary infrastructure, policy, and political will to ameliorate health inequity. A focus on health equity by researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers prioritizes action to address the systematic, avoidable, and unjust differences in health status across population groups sustained over time and generations that are beyond the control of individuals. Health equity requires a collective process in shaping the health and wellbeing of the communities in which we live, learn, work, play, and grow. This paper explores multisectoral leaders' understanding of the social, environmental, and economic conditions that produce and sustain health inequity in northern Arizona, a geographically expansive, largely rural, and culturally diverse region.

METHODS

Data are drawn from the Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative's Regional Health Equity Survey (RHES). The RHES is a community-engaged, cross-sectional online survey comprised of 31 close-ended and 17 open-ended questions. Created to assess cross-sectoral regional and collective capacity to address health inequity and inform multisectoral action for improving community health, the RHES targeted leaders representing five rural northern Arizona counties and 13 sectors. Select open-ended questions were analyzed using an a priori coding scheme and emergent coding with thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Although leaders were provided the definition and asked to describe the root causes of inequities, the majority of leaders described social determinants of health (SDoH). When leaders described root causes of health inequity, they articulated systemic factors affecting their communities, describing discrimination and unequal allocation of power and resources. Most leaders described the SDoH by discussing compounding factors of poverty, transportation, housing, and rurality among others, that together exacerbate inequity. Leaders also identified specific strategies to address SDoH and advance health equity in their communities, ranging from providing direct services to activating partnerships across organizations and sectors in advocacy for policy change.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that community leaders in the northern Arizona region acknowledge the importance of multisectoral collaborations in improving health equity for the populations that they serve. However, a common understanding of health equity remains to be widely established, which is essential for conducting effective multisectoral work to advance health equity.

Public Health Strategies: A Pathway for Public Health Practice to Leverage Law in Advancing Equity

This article outlines a pathway for public health departments and practitioners to incorporate law into their efforts to advance equity in health outcomes. We assert that examining and applying law can accelerate public health efforts to mitigate structural and systemic inequities, including racism. Recent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the community impacts of policing have brought into sharp relief the inequities faced by many populations. These stark and explosive examples arise out of long-standing, persistent, and sometimes hidden structural and systemic inequities that are difficult to trace because they are embedded in laws and accompanying policies and practices. We emphasize this point with a case study involving a small, majority Black community in semirural Appalachia that spent almost 50 years attempting to gain access to the local public water system, despite being surrounded by water lines. We suggest that public health practitioners have a role to play in addressing these kinds of public health problems, which are so clearly tied to the ways laws and policies are developed and executed. We further suggest that public health practitioners, invoking the 10 Essential Public Health Services, can employ law as a tool to increase their capacity to craft and implement evidence-based interventions.

Passing a Healthy Homes Initiative: Using Modeling to Inform Evidence-Based Policy Decision Making in Kansas City, Missouri

CONTEXT AND SETTING

Kansas City, Missouri, experiences substantial racial/ethnic health disparities, particularly associated with that city's high level of residential segregation. Among the risk factors for poor health are substandard housing, particularly common in African American neighborhoods, which lead to asthma and therefore to school absences. A 2018 ballot initiative in Kansas City, Missouri, would allow health inspectors to investigate complaints of poor or hazardous conditions in rental housing.

OBJECTIVES

Because the Kansas City, Missouri Health Department cannot legally advocate directly for voter support of public health policies, department staff used outside consultants to demonstrate the potential positive impact of environmental initiatives.

DESIGN

The Win-Win model provides a standardized, unbiased economic analysis of interventions to help public health officials make informed policy and program decisions and engage in cross-sectoral collaboration.

RESULTS

The Win-Win model found that if an asthma home remediation program were provided for almost 7000 low-income children in Kansas City, it would result in 55 000 fewer days of missed school annually among other promising outcomes. The model also showed a $1.67 return-on-investment to local and state government for each dollar spent and a 3-year breakeven point. The results from the Win-Win model were integrated into Kansas City's Community Health Improvement Plan and made available on the Win-Win Project Web site. The proposed law to promote rental inspections passed with 57% of the vote.

CONCLUSIONS

The model results allowed for an informed, unbiased point of evidence that the health department could present to community groups and elected officials leading up to the vote on the health inspection initiative.

Using a Multisectoral Approach to Advance Health Equity in Rural Arizona: Community-Engaged Survey Development and Implementation Study

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, public health research and practice sectors have shifted their focus away from identifying health disparities and toward addressing the social, environmental, and economic determinants of health equity. Given the complex and interrelated nature of these determinants, developing policies that will advance health equity requires collaboration across sectors outside of health. However, engaging various stakeholder groups, tapping into their unique knowledge systems, and identifying common objectives across sectors is difficult and time consuming and can impede collaborative efforts.

OBJECTIVE

The Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative at Northern Arizona University, in partnership with an 11-member community advisory council, is addressing this need with a joint community-campus effort to develop and implement a Regional Health Equity Survey (RHES) designed to generate an interdisciplinary body of knowledge, which will be used to guide future multisectoral action for improving community health and well-being.

METHODS

Researchers and community partners used facilitated discussions and free listing techniques to generate survey items. The community partners pilot tested the survey instrument to evaluate its feasibility and duration before survey administration. Respondent-driven sampling was used to ensure that participants included leadership from across all sectors and regions of northern Arizona.

RESULTS

Over the course of 6 months, 206 participants representing 13 sectors across the 5 counties of northern Arizona were recruited to participate in an RHES. Survey response rates, completion percentage, and sector representation were used to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of using a community-engaged apporach for survey development and participant recruitment. The findings describe the current capacity to impact health equity by using a multisectoral approach in northern Arizona.

CONCLUSIONS

The Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative effectively engaged community members to assist with the development and implementation of an RHES aimed at understanding and promoting multisectoral action on the root causes of health inequity. The results will help to build research and evaluation capacity to address the social, economic, and environmental conditions of health inequity in the region.

Values are not enough: qualitative study identifying critical elements for prioritization of health equity in health systems

Background

Health system policies and programs that reduce health inequities and improve health outcomes are essential to address unjust social gradients in health. Prioritization of health equity is fundamental to addressing health inequities but challenging to enact in health systems. Strategies are needed to support effective prioritization of health equity.

Methods

Following provincial policy recommendations to apply a health equity lens in all public health programs, we examined health equity prioritization within British Columbia health authorities during early implementation. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews and focus groups with 55 senior executives, public health directors, regional directors, and medical health officers from six health authorities and the Ministry of Health. We used an inductive constant comparative approach to analysis guided by complexity theory to determine critical elements for prioritization.

Results

We identified seven critical elements necessary for two fundamental shifts within health systems. 1) Prioritization through informal organization includes creating a systems value for health equity and engaging health equity champions. 2) Prioritization through formal organization requires explicit naming of health equity as a priority, designating resources for health equity, requiring health equity in decision making, building capacity and competency, and coordinating a comprehensive approach across levels of the health system and government.

Conclusions

Although creating a shared value for health equity is essential, health equity - underpinned by social justice - needs to be embedded at the structural level to support effective prioritization. Prioritization within government and ministries is necessary to facilitate prioritization at other levels. All levels within health systems should be accountable for explicitly including health equity in strategic plans and goals. Dedicated resources are needed for health equity initiatives including adequate resourcing of public health infrastructure, training, and hiring of staff with equity expertise to develop competencies and system capacity.

Trends in Health Equity in the United States by Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Income, 1993-2017

IMPORTANCE

Health equity is an often-cited goal of public health, included among the 4 overarching goals of the Department of Health and Human Services' Healthy People 2020. Yet it is difficult to find summary assessments of national progress toward this goal.

OBJECTIVES

To identify variation in several measures of health equity from 1993 to 2017 in the United States and to test whether there are significant time trends.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Survey study using 25 years of data, from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2017, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to assess trends in health equity and health justice by race/ethnicity, sex, and income in 3 categories by year.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health equity was assessed separately for each of 2 health constructs: healthy days-the average of physical and mental healthy days over the previous 30 days-and general health in 5 categories, rescaled to approximate a continuous variable. For each health construct, average health was calculated along with 4 measures of health equity: disparities across 3 income groups; black-white disparities; health justice-a measure of the correlation of health outcomes with income, race/ethnicity and sex; and a summary health equity metric.

RESULTS

Among the 5 456 006 respondents, the mean (SD) age was 44.5 (12.7) years; 3 178 688 (58.3%) were female; 4 163 945 (76.3%) were non-Latinx white; 474 855 (8.7%) were non-Latinx black; 419 542 (7.7%) were Latinx; and 397 664 (7.3%) were of other race/ethnicity. The final sample included 5 456 006 respondents for self-reported health and 5 349 527 respondents for healthy days. During the 25-year period, the black-white gap showed significant improvement (year coefficient: healthy days, 0.021; 97.5% CI, 0.012 to 0.029; P < .001; self-reported health, 0.030; 97.5% CI, 0.025 to 0.035; P < .001). The health equity metric for self-reported health showed no significant trend. For healthy days, the Health Equity Metric declined over time (year coefficient: healthy days, -0.025; 97.5% CI, -0.033 to -0.017; P < .001). Health justice declined over time (year coefficient: healthy days, -0.045; 97.5% CI, -0.053 to -0.038; P < .001; self-reported health, -0.035; 97.5% CI, -0.046 to-0.023; P < .001), and income disparities worsened (year coefficient: healthy days, -0.060; 97.5% CI, -0.076 to -0.044; P < .001; self-reported health, -0.029; 97.5% CI, -0.046 to -0.012; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this analysis suggest that there has been a clear lack of progress on health equity during the past 25 years in the United States. Achieving widely shared goals of improving health equity will require greater effort from public health policy makers, along with their partners in medicine and the sectors that contribute to the social determinants of health.