Employee Perceptions About Public Health Agencies' Desired Involvement in Impacting Health Equity and Other Social Determinants of Health

Reimagining Public Health: Mapping A Path Forward

The COVID-19 pandemic and other ongoing public health challenges have highlighted deficiencies in the US public health system. The United States is in a unique moment that calls for a transformation that builds on Public Health 3.0 and its focus on social determinants of health and partnerships with diverse sectors while also acknowledging how the pandemic altered the landscape for public health. Based on relevant literature, our experience, and interviews with public health leaders, we describe seven areas of focus within three broad categories to support transformational change. Contextual areas of focus include increasing accountability and addressing politicization and polarization. Topical areas of focus highlight prioritizing climate change and sharpening the focus on equity. Technical areas of focus include advancing data sciences, building the workforce, and enhancing communication capacity. A transformed public health system will depend highly on leadership, funding incentives, and both bottom-up and top-down approaches. A broad effort is needed by public health agencies, governments, and academia to accelerate the transition to a next phase for public health.

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.

The DASH model: Data for addressing social determinants of health in local health departments

Recent frameworks, models, and reports highlight the critical need to address social determinants of health for achieving health equity in the United States and around the globe. In the United States, data play an important role in better understanding community-level and population-level disparities particularly for local health departments. However, data-driven decision-making-the use of data for public health activities such as program implementation, policy development, and resource allocation-is often presented theoretically or through case studies in the literature. We sought to develop a preliminary model that identifies the factors that contribute to data-driven decision-making in US local health departments and describe relationships between them. Guided by implementation science literature, we examined organizational-level capacity and individual-level factors contributing to using data for decision-making related to social determinants of health and the reduction of county-level disparities. This model has the potential to improve implementation of public health interventions and programs aimed at upstream structural factors, by elucidating the factors critical to incorporating data in decision-making.

Public Health Workforce Perceptions About Organizational Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Results From PH WINS 2021

OBJECTIVE

In response to calls to achieve racial equity, racism has been declared as a public health crisis. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is an approach public health organizations are pursuing to address racial inequities in health. However, public health workforce perceptions about organizational commitment to DEI have not yet been assessed. Using a nationally representative survey of public health practitioners, we examine how perceptions about supervisors' and managers' commitment to DEI and their ability to support a diverse workforce relate to perceptions of organizational culture around DEI.

METHODS

Data from the 2021 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey (PH WINS) to examine the relationship between public health employees' perceptions about their organization's commitment to DEI and factors related to those perceptions. PH WINS received 44 732 responses (35% response rate). We calculated descriptive statistics and constructed a logistic regression model to assess these relationships.

RESULTS

Findings show that most public health employees perceive that their organizations are committed to DEI; however, perceptions about commitment to DEI vary by race, ethnicity, gender identity, and organizational setting. Across all settings, White respondents were more likely to agree with the statement, "My organization prioritizes diversity, equity, and inclusion" (range, 70%-75%), than Black/African American (range, 55%-65%) and Hispanic/Latino respondents (range, 62.5%-72.5%). Perception that supervisors worked well with individuals with diverse backgrounds had an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 5.37 ( P < .001); organizational satisfaction had an AOR of 4.45 ( P < .001). Compared with White staff, all other racial and ethnic groups had lower AOR of reporting their organizations prioritized DEI, with Black/African American staff being the lowest (AOR = 0.55), followed by Hispanic/Latino staff (AOR = 0.71) and all other staff (AOR = 0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

These differences suggest that there are opportunities for organizational DEI commitment to marginalized public health staff to further support DEI and racial equity efforts. Building a diverse public health workforce pipeline will not be sufficient to achieve health equity if staff perceive that their organization does not prioritize DEI.

Funding Public Health: Achievements and Challenges in Public Health Financing Since the Institute of Medicine's 2012 Report

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to review changes in public health finance since the 2012 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report "For the Public's Health: Investing in a Healthier Future."

DESIGN

Qualitative study involving key informant interviews.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sample of US public health practitioners, leaders, and academics expected to be knowledgeable about the report recommendations, public health practice, and changes in public health finance since the report.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Qualitative feedback about changes to public health finance since the report.

RESULTS

Thirty-two interviews were conducted between April and May 2019. The greatest momentum toward the report recommendations has occurred predominantly at the state and local levels, with recommendations requiring federal action making less progress. In addition, much of the progress identified is consensus building and preparation for change rather than clear changes. Overall, progress toward the recommendations has been slow.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the achievements reported by respondents were characterized as increased dialogue and individual state or local progress rather than widespread, identifiable policy or practice changes. Participants suggested that public health as a field needs to achieve further consensus and a uniform voice in order to advocate for changes at a federal level.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

Slow progress in achieving 2012 IOM Finance Report recommendations and lack of a cohesive voice pose threats to the public's health, as can be seen in the context of COVID-19 emergency response activities. The pandemic and the nation's inadequate response have highlighted deficiencies in our current system and emphasize the need for coordinated and sustained core public health infrastructure funding at the federal level.