State practitioner insights into local public health challenges and opportunities in obesity prevention: a qualitative study

Involvement of Local Health Departments in Obesity Prevention: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Local health department (LHD) obesity prevention (OP) efforts, particularly by rural LHDs, are seemingly uncommon, in part, due to limited infrastructure, workforce capacity, accessible data, and available population-level interventions aimed at social determinants of health (SDOH).

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to determine LHD roles in OP efforts and interventions. Inclusion criteria were articles including evidence-based OP and LHD leaders or staff. Articles were coded by type of LHD involvement, data use, intervention characteristics, use of an SDOH lens, and urban or rural setting.

RESULTS

We found 154 articles on LHD OP-52 articles met inclusion criteria. Typically, LHDs engaged in only surveillance, initial intervention development, or evaluation and were not LHD led. Data and SDOH lens use were infrequent, and interventions typically took place in urban settings.

CONCLUSION

LHDs could likely play a greater role in OP and population-level interventions and use data in intervention decision making. However, literature is limited. Future research should focus on LHD capacity building, including academic-public health partnerships. Studies should include rural populations, data, and SDOH frameworks addressing "upstream" factors.

"It's good to feel like you're doing something": a qualitative study examining state health department employees' views on why ineffective programs continue to be implemented in the USA

Background

Mis-implementation, the inappropriate continuation of programs or policies that are not evidence-based or the inappropriate termination of evidence-based programs and policies, can lead to the inefficient use of scarce resources in public health agencies and decrease the ability of these agencies to deliver effective programs and improve population health. Little is known about why mis-implementation occurs, which is needed to understand how to address it. This study sought to understand the state health department practitioners’ perspectives about what makes programs ineffective and the reasons why ineffective programs continue.

Methods

Eight state health departments (SHDs) were selected to participate in telephone-administered qualitative interviews about decision-making around ending or continuing programs. States were selected based on geographic representation and on their level of mis-implementation (low and high) categorized from our previous national survey. Forty-four SHD chronic disease staff participated in interviews, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were consensus coded, and themes were identified and summarized. This paper presents two sets of themes, related to (1) what makes a program ineffective and (2) why ineffective programs continue to be implemented according to SHD staff.

Results

Participants considered programs ineffective if they were not evidence-based or if they did not fit well within the population; could not be implemented well due to program restraints or a lack of staff time and resources; did not reach those who could most benefit from the program; or did not show the expected program outcomes through evaluation. Practitioners described several reasons why ineffective programs continued to be implemented, including concerns about damaging the relationships with partner organizations, the presence of program champions, agency capacity, and funding restrictions.

Conclusions

The continued implementation of ineffective programs occurs due to a number of interrelated organizational, relational, human resources, and economic factors. Efforts should focus on preventing mis-implementation since it limits public health agencies’ ability to conduct evidence-based public health, implement evidence-based programs effectively, and reduce the high burden of chronic diseases. The use of evidence-based decision-making in public health agencies and supporting adaptation of programs to improve their fit may prevent mis-implementation. Future work should identify effective strategies to reduce mis-implementation, which can optimize public health practice and improve population health.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00252-4.

Use and Awareness of The Community Guide in State and Local Health Department Chronic Disease Programs

INTRODUCTION

The Community Guide (Guide) is a user-friendly, systematic review system that provides information on evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in public health practice. Little is known about what predicts Guide awareness and use in state health departments (SHDs) and local health departments (LHDs).

METHODS

We pooled data from 3 surveys (administered in 2016, 2017, and 2018) to employees in chronic disease programs at SHDs and LHDs. Participants (n = 1,039) represented all 50 states. The surveys asked about department practices and individual, organizational, and external factors related to decisions about EBIs. We used χ2 tests of independence for analyses.

RESULTS

Eighty-one percent (n = 498) of SHD and 54% (n = 198) of LHD respondents reported their agency uses the Guide. Additionally, 13% of SHD participants reported not being aware of the Guide. Significant relationships were found between reporting using the Guide and academic collaboration, population size, rated importance of forming partnerships, and accreditation.

CONCLUSION

Awareness and use of the Guide in LHD and SHD chronic disease programs is widespread. Awareness of the Guide can be vital to implementation practice, because it enhances implementation of EBI practices. However, awareness of the Guide alone is likely not enough for health departments to implement EBIs. Changes at the organizational level, including sharing information about the Guide and providing training on how to best use it, may increase its awareness and use.

Cross-Jurisdictional Resource Sharing in Local Health Departments: Implications for Services, Quality, and Cost

Background

Forty one percent of local health departments in the U.S. serve jurisdictions with populations of 25,000 or less. Researchers, policymakers, and advocates have long questioned how to strengthen public health systems in smaller municipalities. Cross-jurisdictional sharing may increase quality of service, access to resources, and efficiency of resource use.

Objective

To characterize perceived strengths and challenges of independent and comprehensive sharing approaches, and to assess cost, quality, and breadth of services provided by independent and sharing health departments in Connecticut (CT) and Massachusetts (MA).

Methods

We interviewed local health directors or their designees from 15 comprehensive resource-sharing jurisdictions and 54 single-municipality jurisdictions in CT and MA using a semi-structured interview. Quantitative data were drawn from closed-ended questions in the semi-structured interviews; municipal demographic data were drawn from the American Community Survey and other public sources. Qualitative data were drawn from open-ended questions in the semi-structured interviews.

Results

The findings from this multistate study highlight advantages and disadvantages of two common public health service delivery models – independent and shared. Shared service jurisdictions provided more community health programs and services, and invested significantly more ($120 per thousand (1K) population vs. $69.5/1K population) on healthy food access activities. Sharing departments had more indicators of higher quality food safety inspections (FSIs), and there was a non-linear relationship between cost per FSI and number of FSI. Minimum cost per FSI was reached above the total number of FSI conducted by all but four of the jurisdictions sampled. Independent jurisdictions perceived their governing bodies to have greater understanding of the roles and responsibilities of local public health, while shared service jurisdictions had fewer staff per 1,000 population.

Implications

There are trade-offs with sharing and remaining independent. Independent health departments serving small jurisdictions have limited resources but strong local knowledge. Multi-municipality departments have more resources but require more time and investment in governance and decision-making. When making decisions about the right service delivery model for a given municipality, careful consideration should be given to local culture and values. Some economies of scale may be achieved through resource sharing for municipalities <25,000 population.

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.

Local Health Department Engagement in Community Physical Activity Policy

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed correlates of self-reported local health department (LHD) participation in community policy/advocacy activities that support physical activity.

METHODS

In 2014, cross-sectional data from the nationally representative 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments study administered by the National Association of County and City Health Officials were analyzed. Outcomes were participation in policy/advocacy activities related to urban design/land use, active transportation, and access to recreational facilities. Independent variables included structural characteristics, performance improvement efforts, and collaboration. Multivariate logistic regression models were computed.

RESULTS

Representatives of 490 LHDs participated (79% response rate). Respondents reported similar participation in urban design/land use (25%); active transportation (16%); and recreational facility access (23%) policy/advocacy. LHDs with populations of ≥500,000 were more likely to report urban design/land use (p=0.004) as well as active transportation policy/advocacy participation (p=0.007) compared with those with populations of ≤50,000. LHDs with a community health improvement plan were more likely to participate in urban design/land use policy/advocacy (p=0.001). LHDs who regularly use the Community Guide were more likely to report policy/advocacy activity on active transportation (p=0.007) and expanding access to recreation facilities (p=0.009). LHDs engaged in a land use partnership were more likely to report urban design/land use (p<0.001) and active transportation (p=0.001) policy/advocacy participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in community physical activity policy/advocacy among LHDs was low in this study and varied by LHD characteristics. Intervention opportunities include assisting smaller LHDs and promoting performance improvement efforts and evidence-based practice resources.

Development of a community health inclusion index: an evaluation tool for improving inclusion of people with disabilities in community health initiatives

BACKGROUND

Community health initiatives often do not provide enough supports for people with disabilities to fully participate in healthy, active living opportunities. The purpose of this study was to design an instrument that focused on integrating disability-related items into a multi-level survey tool that assessed healthy, active living initiatives.

METHODS

The development and testing of the Community Health Inclusion Index (CHII) involved four components: (a) literature review of studies that examined barriers and facilitators to healthy, active living; (b) focus groups with persons with disabilities and professionals living in geographically diverse settings; (c) expert panel to establish a final set of critical items; and (d) field testing the CHII in 164 sites across 15 communities in 5 states to assess the instrument's reliability.

RESULTS

Results from initial analysis of these data indicated that the CHII has good reliability. Depending on the subscale, Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.700 to 0.965. The CHII's inter-rater agreement showed that 14 of the 15 venues for physical activity or healthy eating throughout a community had strong agreement (0.81 - 1.00), while one venue had substantial agreement (0.61 - 0.80).

CONCLUSION

The CHII is the first instrument to operationalize community health inclusion into a comprehensive assessment tool that can be used by public health professionals and community coalitions to examine the critical supports needed for improving healthy, active living among people with disabilities.