Controlling Chronic Diseases Through Evidence-Based Decision Making: A Group-Randomized Trial

Equipping the Public Health Workforce of the Future: Evaluation of an Evidence-Based Public Health Training Delivered Through Academic-Health Department Partnerships

OBJECTIVE

Maintaining a skilled public health workforce is essential but challenging given high turnover and that few staff hold a public health degree. Situating workforce development within existing structures leverages the strengths of different organizations and can build relationships to address public health challenges and health equity. We implemented and evaluated an innovative, sustainable model to deliver an established evidence-based public health (EBPH) training collaboratively among Prevention Research Centers (PRC), local and state health departments, and Public Health Training Centers (PHTC).

DESIGN

Quantitative data: quasi-experimental, 1-group pre-post. Qualitative data: cross-sectional. Data were collected between December 2021 and August 2022.

SETTING

Four US sites, each a partnership between a PRC, local or state health department, and a PHTC.

PARTICIPANTS

Governmental public health staff and representatives from other organizations that implement public health programs in practice settings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Course participants completed a pre- and postcourse survey self-rating 14 skills on a 5-point Likert scale. Differences were analyzed using mixed effects linear models. In-depth interviews (n = 15) were conducted with course faculty and partners to understand: (1) resources contributed, (2) barriers and facilitators, (3) benefits and challenges, and (4) resources needed to sustain this model. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a thematic analysis identified themes.

RESULTS

Statistically significant increases in all skills were observed from pre- to postcourse (n = 241 at post, 90% response). The skills with the largest increases were understanding economic evaluation enough to inform decision-making (mean change = 1.22, standard error [SE] = 0.05) and developing an action plan (mean change = 1.07, SE = 0.07). Facilitators to delivering the course included having a shared goal of workforce development, existing course curricula, and dedicated funding for delivering the course.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative delivery of the EBPH training can ameliorate the effects of high staff turnover, strengthen academic-practice relationships, and promote population-wide health and health equity.

Strategies to implement evidence-informed decision making at the organizational level: a rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

Achievement of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) requires the integration of evidence into all practice decisions by identifying and synthesizing evidence, then developing and executing plans to implement and evaluate changes to practice. This rapid systematic review synthesizes evidence for strategies for the implementation of EIDM across organizations, mapping facilitators and barriers to the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model for behaviour change. The review was conducted to support leadership at organizations delivering public health services (health promotion, communicable disease prevention) to drive change toward evidence-informed public health.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in multiple databases and by reviewing publications of key authors. Articles that describe interventions to drive EIDM within teams, departments, or organizations were eligible for inclusion. For each included article, quality was assessed, and details of the intervention, setting, outcomes, facilitators and barriers were extracted. A convergent integrated approach was undertaken to analyze both quantitative and qualitative findings.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles are included. Studies were conducted in primary care, public health, social services, and occupational health settings. Strategies to implement EIDM included the establishment of Knowledge Broker-type roles, building the EIDM capacity of staff, and research or academic partnerships. Facilitators and barriers align with the COM-B model for behaviour change. Facilitators for capability include the development of staff knowledge and skill, establishing specialized roles, and knowledge sharing across the organization, though staff turnover and subsequent knowledge loss was a barrier to capability. For opportunity, facilitators include the development of processes or mechanisms to support new practices, forums for learning and skill development, and protected time, and barriers include competing priorities. Facilitators identified for motivation include supportive organizational culture, expectations for new practices to occur, recognition and positive reinforcement, and strong leadership support. Barriers include negative attitudes toward new practices, and lack of understanding and support from management.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a comprehensive analysis of facilitators and barriers for the implementation of EIDM in organizations for public health, mapped to the COM-B model for behaviour change. The existing literature for strategies to support EIDM in public health illustrates several facilitators and barriers linked to realizing EIDM. Knowledge of these factors will help senior leadership develop and implement EIDM strategies tailored to their organization, leading to increased likelihood of implementation success.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022318994.

Designing for dissemination among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA

Introduction

The slow adoption of evidence-based interventions reflects gaps in effective dissemination of research evidence. Existing studies examining designing for dissemination (D4D), a process that ensures interventions and implementation strategies consider adopters' contexts, have focused primarily on researchers, with limited perspectives of practitioners. To address these gaps, this study examined D4D practice among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study among public health and primary care practitioners in April to June 2022 (analyzed in July 2022 to December 2022). Both groups were recruited through national-level rosters. The survey was informed by previous D4D studies and pretested using cognitive interviewing.

Results

Among 577 respondents, 45% were public health and 55% primary care practitioners, with an overall survey response rate of 5.5%. The most commonly ranked sources of research evidence were email announcements for public health practitioners (43.7%) and reading academic journals for clinical practitioners (37.9%). Practitioners used research findings to promote health equity (67%) and evaluate programs/services (66%). A higher proportion of clinical compared to public health practitioners strongly agreed/agreed that within their work setting they had adequate financial resources (36% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) and adequate staffing (36% vs. 24%, p = 0.001) to implement research findings. Only 20% of all practitioners reported having a designated individual or team responsible for finding and disseminating research evidence.

Conclusions

Addressing both individual and modifiable barriers, including organizational capacity to access and use research evidence, may better align the efforts of researchers with priorities and resources of practitioners.

How to "Start Small and Just Keep Moving Forward": Mixed Methods Results From a Stepped-Wedge Trial to Support Evidence-Based Processes in Local Health Departments

Background

Local health departments (LHDs) in the United States are charged with preventing disease and promoting health in their respective communities. Understanding and addressing what supports LHD's need to foster a climate and culture supportive of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) processes can enhance delivery of effective practices and services.

Methods

We employed a stepped-wedge trial design to test staggered delivery of implementation supports in 12 LHDs (Missouri, USA) to expand capacity for EBDM processes. The intervention was an in-person training in EBDM and continued support by the research team over 24 months (March 2018-February 2020). We used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate: (1) individuals' EBDM skills, (2) organizational supports for EBDM, and (3) administered evidence-based interventions. LHD staff completed a quantitative survey at 4 time points measuring their EBDM skills, organizational supports, and evidence-based interventions. We selected 4 LHDs with high contact and engagement during the intervention period to interview staff (n = 17) about facilitators and barriers to EBDM. We used mixed-effects linear regression to examine quantitative survey outcomes. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded through a dual independent process.

Results

Overall, 519 LHD staff were eligible and invited to complete quantitative surveys during control periods and 593 during intervention (365 unique individuals). A total of 434 completed during control and 492 during intervention (83.6 and 83.0% response, respectively). In both trial modes, half the participants had at least a master's degree (49.7-51.7%) and most were female (82.1-83.8%). No significant intervention effects were found in EBDM skills or in implementing evidence-based interventions. Two organizational supports scores decreased in intervention vs. control periods: awareness (-0.14, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.01, p < 0.05) and climate cultivation (-0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02, p < 0.05) but improved over time among all participants. Interviewees noted staff turnover, limited time, resources and momentum as challenges to continue EBDM work. Setting expectations, programmatic reviews, and pre-existing practices were seen as facilitators.

Conclusions

Challenges (e.g., turnover, resources) may disrupt LHDs' abilities to fully embed organizational processes which support EBDM. This study and related literature provides understanding on how best to support LHDs in building capacity to use and sustain evidence-based practices.

Impact of Contextual Factors on the Attendance and Role in the Evidence-Based Chronic Disease Prevention Programs Among Primary Care Practitioners in Shanghai, China

BACKGROUND

The implementation of evidence-based approaches by general practitioners (GPs) is new in the primary care setting, and few quantitative studies have evaluated the impact of contextual factors on the attendance of these approaches.

METHODS

In total, 892 GPs from 75 community healthcare centers (CHCs) in Shanghai completed our survey. We used logistic regression to analyze factors affecting the number of evidence-based chronic disease programs attended by GPs and whether they had held the lead position in such a program.

RESULTS

A total of 346 (38.8%) of the practitioners had never participated in any evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP) program. The EBCDP interventions in which the GPs had participated were predominantly related to hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. However, the proportion of GPs in the lead role was relatively low, between 0.8% (programs involving prevention and control of asthma) and 5.0% (diabetes). Organizational factors and areas were significantly associated with evidence-based practices (EBPs) of the GP, while monthly income and department were the most significantly related to GPs who have the lead role in a program. The results indicated that GPs who had taken the lead position had higher scores for policy and economic impeding factors. GPs who were men, had a higher income, and worked in prevention and healthcare departments and urban areas were more likely to take the lead position.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based programs for chronic diseases should be extended to different types of diseases. Personal, organizational, political, and economic factors and the factors of female sex, lower income, department type, and suburban area environment should be considered to facilitate the translation of evidence to practice.

The Relationships Between State Health Department Practitioners' Perceptions of Organizational Supports and Evidence-Based Decision-Making Skills

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based decision making (EBDM) allows public health practitioners to implement effective programs and policies fitting the preferences of their communities. To engage in EBDM, practitioners must have skills themselves, their agencies must engage in administrative evidence-based practices (A-EBPs), and leaders must encourage the use of EBDM. We conducted this longitudinal study to quantify perceptions of individual EBDM skills and A-EBPs, as well as the longitudinal associations between the 2.

METHODS

An online survey completed among US state health department practitioners in 2016 and 2018 assessed perceptions of respondents' skills in EBDM and A-EBPs. We used χ2 tests, t tests, and linear regressions to quantify changes over time, differences by demographic characteristics, and longitudinal associations between individual skills and A-EBPs among respondents who completed both surveys (N = 336).

RESULTS

Means of most individual EBDM skills and A-EBPs did not change significantly from 2016 to 2018. We found significant positive associations between changes in A-EBPs and changes in EBDM skill gaps: for example, a 1-point increase in the relationships and partnerships score was associated with a narrowing of the EBDM skill gap (β estimate = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.61). At both time points, perceived skills and A-EBPs related to financial practices were low.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study can guide the development and dissemination of initiatives designed to simultaneously improve individual and organizational capacity for EBDM in public health settings. Future studies should focus on types of strategies most effective to build capacity in particular types of agencies and practitioners, to ultimately improve public health practice.

Long-Term Evaluation of a Course on Evidence-Based Public Health in the U.S. and Europe

The evidence-based public health course equips public health professionals with skills and tools for applying evidence-based frameworks and processes in public health practice. To date, training has included participants from all the 50 U.S. states, 2 U.S. territories, and multiple other countries besides the U.S. This study pooled follow-up efforts (5 surveys, with 723 course participants, 2005-2019) to explore the benefits, application, and barriers to applying the evidence-based public health course content. All analyses were completed in 2020. The most common benefits (reported by >80% of all participants) were identifying ways to apply knowledge in their work, acquiring new knowledge, and becoming a better leader who promotes evidence-based approaches. Participants most frequently applied course content to searching the scientific literature (72.9%) and least frequently to writing grants (42.7%). Lack of funds for continued training (35.3%), not having enough time to implement evidence-based public health approaches (33.8%), and not having coworkers trained in evidence-based public health (33.1%) were common barriers to applying the content from the course. Mean scores were calculated for benefits, application, and barriers to explore subgroup differences. European participants generally reported higher benefits from the course (mean difference=0.12, 95% CI=0.00, 0.23) and higher frequency of application of the course content to their job (mean difference=0.17, 95% CI=0.06, 0.28) than U.S. participants. Participants from later cohorts (2012-2019) reported more overall barriers to applying course content in their work (mean difference=0.15, 95% CI=0.05, 0.24). The evidence-based public health course represents an important strategy for increasing the capacity (individual skills) for evidence-based processes within public health practice. Organization-level methods are also needed to scale up and sustain capacity-building efforts.

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.

Assessing Organizational Supports for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Public Health Departments in the United States: Development and Psychometric Properties of a New Measure

CONTEXT

Fostering evidence-based decision making (EBDM) within local public health departments and among local health department (LHD) practitioners is crucial for the successful translation of research into public health practice to prevent and control chronic disease.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify organizational supports for EBDM within LHDs and determine psychometric properties of a measure of organizational supports for EBDM in LHDs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, observation study.

SETTING

Local public health departments in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Local health department practitioners (N = 376) across the United States participated in the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Local health department practitioners completed a survey containing 27 items about organizational supports for EBDM. Most items were adapted from previously developed surveys, and input from researchers and practitioners guided survey development. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test and refine the psychometric properties of the measure.

RESULTS

The final solution included 6 factors of 22 items: awareness of EBDM (3 items), capacity for EBDM (7 items), resources availability (3 items), evaluation capacity (3 items), EBDM climate cultivation (3 items), and partnerships to support EBDM (3 items). This factor solution achieved acceptable fit (eg, Comparative Fit Index = 0.965). Logistic regression models showed positive relationships between the 6 factors and the number of evidence-based interventions delivered.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified important organizational supports for EBDM within LHDs. Results of this study can be used to understand and enhance organizational processes and structures to support EBDM to improve LHD performance and population health. Strong measures are important for understanding how LHDs support EBDM, evaluating interventions to improve LHD capacity, and to guide programmatic and policy efforts within LHDs.

Organizational Supports for Research Evidence Use in State Public Health Agencies: A Latent Class Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Use of research evidence in public health decision making can be affected by organizational supports. Study objectives are to identify patterns of organizational supports and explore associations with research evidence use for job tasks among public health practitioners.

DESIGN

In this longitudinal study, we used latent class analysis to identify organizational support patterns, followed by mixed logistic regression analysis to quantify associations with research evidence use.

SETTING

The setting included 12 state public health department chronic disease prevention units and their external partnering organizations involved in chronic disease prevention.

PARTICIPANTS

Chronic disease prevention staff from 12 US state public health departments and partnering organizations completed self-report surveys at 2 time points, in 2014 and 2016 (N = 872).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Latent class analysis was employed to identify subgroups of survey participants with distinct patterns of perceived organizational supports. Two classify-analyze approaches (maximum probability assignment and multiple pseudo-class draws) were used in 2017 to investigate the association between latent class membership and research evidence use.

RESULTS

The optimal model identified 4 latent classes, labeled as "unsupportive workplace," "low agency leadership support," "high agency leadership support," and "supportive workplace." With maximum probability assignment, participants in "high agency leadership support" (odds ratio = 2.08; 95% CI, 1.35-3.23) and "supportive workplace" (odds ratio = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.10-2.74) were more likely to use research evidence in job tasks than "unsupportive workplace." The multiple pseudo-class draws produced comparable results with odds ratio = 2.09 (95% CI, 1.31-3.30) for "high agency leadership support" and odds ratio = 1.74 (95% CI, 1.07-2.82) for "supportive workplace."

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that leadership support may be a crucial element of organizational supports to encourage research evidence use. Organizational supports such as supervisory expectations, access to evidence, and participatory decision making may need leadership support as well to improve research evidence use in public health job tasks.

Practitioner perspectives on building capacity for evidence-based public health in state health departments in the United States: a qualitative case study

BACKGROUND

Public health agencies are responsible for implementing effective, evidence-based public health programs and policies to reduce the burden of chronic diseases. Evidence-based public health can be facilitated by modifiable administrative evidence-based practices (A-EBPs) (e.g., workforce development, organizational climate), yet little is known about how practitioners view A-EBPs. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative study was to understand state health department practitioners' perceptions about how A-EBPs are implemented and what facilitators and barriers exist to using A-EBPs.

METHODS

Chronic disease prevention and health promotion program staff who were members of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors were recruited to participate in telephone interviews using a snowball sampling technique. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analyzed using a common codebook and the a priori method in NVivo.

RESULTS

Twenty seven interviews were conducted with practitioners in four states (5-8 interviews per state). All practitioners felt that their work unit culture is positive and that leadership encouraged and expected staff to use evidence-based processes. Participants discussed the provision of trainings and technical assistance as key to workforce development and how leaders communicate their expectations. Access to evidence, partnerships, and funding restrictions were the most commonly discussed barriers to the use of A-EBPs and EBDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study highlight practitioners' perspectives on promoting evidence-based public health in their departments. Findings can inform the development and refinement of resources to improve A-EBP use and organizational and leadership capacity of state health departments.

Local Health Department Accreditation Is Associated With Organizational Supports for Evidence-Based Decision Making

Introduction: Recent studies show that health department accreditation from the U.S. Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) drives performance management and quality improvement. PHAB standards call for agencies to use evidence in decision making. It is unknown whether accreditation is associated with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making (EBDM). Self-report data from a 2017 survey of U.S. local health departments were analyzed to test relationships of accreditation status with organizational supports for EBDM.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in this observational study. A total of 579 local health departments were invited to complete an online survey; 350 (60.4%) provided complete data for the present study. The dependent variables were six factors of organizational supports for EBDM previously validated through confirmatory factor analyses. Accreditation status (PHAB-accredited, preparing, not preparing) was the independent variable of interest. Logistic regression analyses controlled for governance (presence of a local board of health; state, local, or shared state and local governance) and jurisdiction population size.

Results: PHAB-accredited health departments were more likely to report higher capacity for EBDM, resource availability for EBDM, and evaluation capacity than health departments that reported not yet preparing for accreditation. Health departments that reported preparing for PHAB accreditation showed a non-significant pattern of higher perceived supports for EBDM compared to departments not preparing for accreditation.

Conclusion: PHAB standards and the accreditation process may help stimulate health department organizational supports for EBDM.

Designing Capacity-Building Supports to Promote Evidence-Based Programs in Community-Based Organizations Working with Underserved Populations

BACKGROUND

It is critical to build capacity to use evidence-based health promotion programs in community-based organizations (CBOs), particularly those working with underserved populations. Packages of ongoing capacity-building supports seem to be critical, but it is not clear how best to design and deploy them.

OBJECTIVES

PLANET MassCONECT was a participatory research project to increase capacity for the use of evidence-based programs (EBPs) among CBO staff members in three Massachusetts communities experiencing health disparities. We assessed the impact of trainee engagement with capacity-building supports on the use of a systematic approach to program planning.

METHODS

Trainees were enrolled from 2010 to 2012 and engaged until 2014. The intervention started with a workshop and included ongoing capacity-building supports (a customized web portal and resources, networking events, minigrants, and technical assistance). Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between trainee engagement with capacity-building supports offered after the workshop and key outcomes at year 1.

RESULTS

Of the capacity-building supports offered after the workshop, the web portal was the most popular. Higher use of systematic program planning approaches in the first year was predicted by web portal use (odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-8.67; p = 0.04), and participation in the minigrant process (OR, 5.40; 95% CI, 1.09-28.69; p = 0.04). Separately, high intention to use systematic approaches for program planning was predicted by web portal use (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 1.27-9.52; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing capacity-building supports may promote EBP planning in CBOs, but institutional constraints may limit practitioners' ability to engage with such supports.

Lessons Learned in Promoting Evidence-Based Public Health: Perspectives from Managers in State Public Health Departments

Evidence-based public health (EBPH) practice, also called evidence-informed public health, can improve population health and reduce disease burden in populations. Organizational structures and processes can facilitate capacity-building for EBPH in public health agencies. This study involved 51 structured interviews with leaders and program managers in 12 state health department chronic disease prevention units to identify factors that facilitate the implementation of EBPH. Verbatim transcripts of the de-identified interviews were consensus coded in NVIVO qualitative software. Content analyses of coded texts were used to identify themes and illustrative quotes. Facilitator themes included leadership support within the chronic disease prevention unit and division, unit processes to enhance information sharing across program areas and recruitment and retention of qualified personnel, training and technical assistance to build skills, and the ability to provide support to external partners. Chronic disease prevention leaders’ role modeling of EBPH processes and expectations for staff to justify proposed plans and approaches were key aspects of leadership support. Leaders protected staff time in order to identify and digest evidence to address the common barrier of lack of time for EBPH. Funding uncertainties or budget cuts, lack of political will for EBPH, and staff turnover remained challenges. In conclusion, leadership support is a key facilitator of EBPH capacity building and practice. Section and division leaders in public health agencies with authority and skills can institute management practices to help staff learn and apply EBPH processes and spread EBPH with partners.

Preparing Public Health Professionals to Make Evidence-Based Decisions: A Comparison of Training Delivery Methods in the United States

Background: Evidence-based decision making (EBDM) in health programs and policies can reduce population disease burden. Training in EBDM for the public health workforce is necessary to continue capacity building efforts. While in-person training for EBDM is established and effective, gaps in skills for practicing EBDM remain. Distance and blended learning (a combination of distance and in-person) have the potential to increase reach and reduce costs for training in EBDM. However, evaluations to-date have focused primarily on in-person training. Here we examine effectiveness of in-person trainings compared to distance and blended learning.

Methods: A quasi-experimental pre-post design was used to compare gaps in skills for EBDM among public health practitioners who received in-person training, distance and blended learning, and controls. Nine training sites agreed to replicate a course in EBDM with public health professionals in their state or region. Courses were conducted either in-person (n = 6) or via distance or blended learning (n = 3). All training participants, along with controls, were asked to complete a survey before the training and 6 months post-training. Paired surveys were used in linear mixed models to compare effectiveness of training compared to controls.

Results: Response rates for pre and post-surveys were 63.9 and 48.8% for controls and 81.6 and 62.0% for training groups. Participants who completed both pre and post-surveys (n = 272; 84 in-person, 67 distance or blended, and 121 controls) were mostly female (89.0%) and about two-thirds (65.3%) were from local health departments. In comparison to controls, overall gaps in skills for EBDM were reduced for participants of both in-person training (β = −0.55, SE = 0.27, p = 0.041) and distance or blended training (β = −0.64, SE = 0.29, p = 0.026).

Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of using diverse methods of learning (including distance or blended in-person approaches) for scaling up capacity building in EBDM. Further exploration into effective implementation strategies for EBDM trainings specific to course delivery type and understanding delivery preferences are important next steps.

Management Practices to Build Evidence-Based Decision-Making Capacity for Chronic Disease Prevention in Georgia: A Case Study

BACKGROUND

Research shows that training can improve skills needed for evidence-based decision making, but less is known about instituting organizational supports to build capacity for evidence-based chronic disease prevention.

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

The objectives of this case study were to assess facilitators and challenges of applying management practices to support evidence-based decision making in chronic disease prevention programs in the public health system in Georgia through key informant interviews and quantitatively test for changes in perceived management practices and skills through a pre-post survey.

METHODS

Leadership of the chronic disease prevention section hosted a multiday training, provided regular supplemental training, restructured the section and staff meetings, led and oversaw technical assistance with partners, instituted transparent performance-based contracting, and made other changes. A 65-item online survey measured perceived importance of skills and the availability of skilled staff, organizational supports, and use of research evidence at baseline (2014) and in 2016 (after training). A structured interview guide asked about management practices, context, internal and external facilitators and barriers, and recommendations.

CAPACITY-BUILDING ACTIVITIES AND SURVEY FINDINGS

Seventy-four staff members and partners completed both surveys (70.5% response). Eleven participants also completed a 1-hour telephone interview. Interview participants deemed leadership support and implementation of multiple concurrent management practices key facilitators to increase capacity. Main challenges included competing priorities, lack of political will, and receipt of requests counter to evidence-based approaches. At posttest, health department staff had significantly reduced gaps in skills overall (10-item sum) and in 4 of 10 individual skills, and increased use of research evidence to justify interventions. Use of research evidence for evaluation, but not skills, increased among partners.

INTERPRETATION

The commitment of leaders with authority to establish multiple management practices to help staff members learn and apply evidence-based decision-making processes is key to increased use of evidence-based chronic disease prevention to improve population health.

Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research

Timely implementation of principles of evidence-based public health (EBPH) is critical for bridging the gap between discovery of new knowledge and its application. Public health organizations need sufficient capacity (the availability of resources, structures, and workforce to plan, deliver, and evaluate the preventive dose of an evidence-based intervention) to move science to practice. We review principles of EBPH, the importance of capacity building to advance evidence-based approaches, promising approaches for capacity building, and future areas for research and practice. Although there is general agreement among practitioners and scientists on the importance of EBPH, there is less clarity on the definition of evidence, how to find it, and how, when, and where to use it. Capacity for EBPH is needed among both individuals and organizations. Capacity can be strengthened via training, use of tools, technical assistance, assessment and feedback, peer networking, and incentives. Modest investments in EBPH capacity building will foster more effective public health practice.

Enhancing evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease control among local health departments: a multi-phase dissemination study with a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial component

BACKGROUND

The rates of diabetes and prediabetes in the USA are growing, significantly impacting the quality and length of life of those diagnosed and financially burdening society. Premature death and disability can be prevented through implementation of evidence-based programs and policies (EBPPs). Local health departments (LHDs) are uniquely positioned to implement diabetes control EBPPs because of their knowledge of, and focus on, community-level needs, contexts, and resources. There is a significant gap, however, between known diabetes control EBPPs and actual diabetes control activities conducted by LHDs. The purpose of this study is to determine how best to support the use of evidence-based public health for diabetes (and related chronic diseases) control among local-level public health practitioners.

METHODS/DESIGN

This paper describes the methods for a two-phase study with a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial that will evaluate dissemination strategies to increase the uptake of public health knowledge and EBPPs for diabetes control among LHDs. Phase 1 includes development of measures to assess practitioner views on and organizational supports for evidence-based public health, data collection using a national online survey of LHD chronic disease practitioners, and a needs assessment of factors influencing the uptake of diabetes control EBPPs among LHDs within one state in the USA. Phase 2 involves conducting a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial to assess effectiveness of dissemination strategies with local-level practitioners at LHDs to enhance capacity and organizational support for evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. Twelve LHDs will be selected and randomly assigned to one of the three groups that cross over from usual practice to receive the intervention (dissemination) strategies at 8-month intervals; the intervention duration for groups ranges from 8 to 24 months. Intervention (dissemination) strategies may include multi-day in-person workshops, electronic information exchange methods, technical assistance through a knowledge broker, and organizational changes to support evidence-based public health approaches. Evaluation methods comprise surveys at baseline and the three crossover time points, abstraction of local-level diabetes and chronic disease control program plans and progress reports, and social network analysis to understand the relationships and contextual issues that influence EBPP adoption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03211832.