Community health needs assessments: filling data gaps for population health research and management

Inclusive and intersectoral: community health improvement planning opportunities to advance the social determinants of health and health equity

BACKGROUND

Community health improvement plans (CHIPs) are strategic planning tools that help local communities identify and address their public health needs. Many local health departments have developed a CHIP, yet there is a lack of research on the extent to which these plans address root causes of health disparities such as the social determinants of health. This study aims to inventory the social determinants of health included in 13 CHIPs and examine facilitators and challenges faced by local health departments and partners when trying to include the social determinants of health.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative plan evaluation by scoring 13 CHIPs on their inclusion of equity orientation, inclusive planning processes, and five social determinants of health: health care access and quality, the neighborhood and built environment, economic stability, social and community context, and education access and quality. To supplement the plan evaluation, we conducted 32 in-depth interviews with CHIP leaders and stakeholders to understand the factors contributing to the inclusion and exclusion of the social determinants of health in the planning process.

RESULTS

CHIPs received an average score of 49/100 for the inclusion of the social determinants of health. Most plans addressed health care access and quality and the neighborhood and built environment, but they often did not address economic stability, the social and community context, and education access and quality. Regarding their overall equity orientation, CHIPs received an average score of 35/100, reflecting a relative lack of attention to equity and inclusive planning processes in the plans. Interviews revealed that challenges engaging partners, making clear connections between CHIPs and social determinants, and a lack of capacity or public and partner support often led to the exclusion of the social determinants of health. Recommendations to improve planning processes include improving data infrastructure, providing resources for dedicated planning staff and community engagement incentives, and centering equity throughout the planning process.

CONCLUSIONS

Although local health departments can leverage CHIPs to improve population health and address health disparities, they face a range of challenges to including the social determinants of health in CHIPs. Additional resourcing and improved data are needed to facilitate broader inclusion of these determinants, and more work is needed to elevate equity throughout these planning processes.

A scoping review of community health needs and assets assessment: concepts, rationale, tools and uses

BACKGROUND

Community health needs and assets assessment is a means of identifying and describing community health needs and resources, serving as a mechanism to gain the necessary information to make informed choices about community health. The current review of the literature was performed in order to shed more light on concepts, rationale, tools and uses of community health needs and assets assessment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the literature published in English using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PDQ evidence, NIH database, Cochrane library, CDC library, Trip, and Global Health Library databases until March 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 169 articles including both empirical papers and theoretical and conceptual work were ultimately retained for analysis. Relevant concepts were examined guided by a conceptual framework. The empirical papers were dominantly conducted in the  United States. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method approaches were used to collect data on community health needs and assets, with an increasing trend of using mixed-method approaches. Almost half of the included empirical studies used participatory approaches to incorporate community inputs into the process.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the need for having holistic approaches to assess community's health needs focusing on physical, mental and social wellbeing, along with considering the broader systems factors and structural challenges to individual and population health. Furthermore, the findings emphasize assessing community health assets as an integral component of the process, beginning foremost with community capabilities and knowledge. There has been a trend toward using mixed-methods approaches to conduct the assessment in recent years that led to the inclusion of the voices of all community members, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. A notable gap in the existing literature is the lack of long-term or longitudinal-assessment of the community health needs assessment impacts.

Health Care Transformation: The Role of Academic Health Centers and Their Psychologists

The health care system of the United States has been in a period of dramatic transformation since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and the rate of change is accelerating. Historically, health care delivery was focused on the efforts of independent individual providers related to single patients, but the future will require interprofessional teamwork to achieve successful transformation. Academic health centers must identify nimble leaders who can harness the expertise of every team member to succeed in yielding the triple aim-better care for individuals, better health for populations, and lower overall cost. To create this change, there are several critical success factors for academic health center leaders, including creating a culture of collaboration, becoming "multipliers," embracing innovation, adhering to core professional ethics, and working to promote resilience. Given their extensive training and predisposition to these skills, psychologists are well-positioned to serve as leaders in today's academic health systems.

An Iterative, Low-Cost Strategy to Building Information Systems Allows a Small Jurisdiction Local Health Department to Increase Efficiencies and Expand Services

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

The objective of this case study was to describe the process and outcomes of a small local health department's (LHD's) strategy to build and use information systems. The case study is based on a review of documents and semi-structured interviews with key informants in the Pomperaug District Health Department. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The case study here suggests that small LHDs can use a low-resource, incremental strategy to build information systems for improving departmental effectiveness and efficiency. Specifically, we suggest that the elements for this department's success were simple information systems, clear vision, consistent leadership, and the involvement, training, and support of staff.

Interoperability of Information Systems Managed and Used by the Local Health Departments

BACKGROUND

In the post-Affordable Care Act era marked by interorganizational collaborations and availability of large amounts of electronic data from other community partners, it is imperative to assess the interoperability of information systems used by the local health departments (LHDs).

OBJECTIVES

To describe the level of interoperability of LHD information systems and identify factors associated with lack of interoperability.

DATA AND METHODS

This mixed-methods research uses data from the 2015 Informatics Capacity and Needs Assessment Survey, with a target population of all LHDs in the United States. A representative sample of 650 LHDs was drawn using a stratified random sampling design. A total of 324 completed responses were received (50% response rate). Qualitative data were used from a key informant interview study of LHD informatics staff from across the United States. Qualitative data were independently coded by 2 researchers and analyzed thematically. Survey data were cleaned, bivariate comparisons were conducted, and a multivariable logistic regression was run to characterize factors associated with interoperability.

RESULTS

For 30% of LHDs, no systems were interoperable, and 38% of LHD respondents indicated some of the systems were interoperable. Significant determinants of interoperability included LHDs having leadership support (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.54), control of information technology budget allocation (AOR = 2.48), control of data systems (AOR = 2.31), having a strategic plan for information systems (AOR = 1.92), and existence of business process analysis and redesign (AOR = 1.49).

CONCLUSION

Interoperability of all systems may be an informatics goal, but only a small proportion of LHDs reported having interoperable systems, pointing to a substantial need among LHDs nationwide.