Benefits and challenges of consolidating public health functions into a National Public Health Institute: a policy analysis.

National Public Health Institutes (NPHIs) around the world vary in composition. Consolidated organizational models can bring together critical functions such as disease surveillance, emergency preparedness and response, public health research, workforce development and laboratory diagnosis within a single focal point. This can lead to enhanced coordination and management of resources and enable more efficient and effective public health operations. We explored stakeholders' perceptions about the benefits and challenges of consolidating public health functions in an NPHI in seven countries where the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has supported NPHI establishment and strengthening. From August 2019 through January 2020, we interviewed a total of 96 stakeholders, including NPHI staff (N = 43), non-NPHI government staff (N = 29) and non-governmental and international organization staff (N = 24) in Cambodia, Colombia, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda and Zambia. We conducted a policy analysis using Tea Collins's health policy analysis framework to assess various possible options for coordinating public health functions and their likely effectiveness. The findings can be used by policymakers as they consider public health infrastructure. We found that consolidating functions in an NPHI, to the extent politically and organizationally feasible, promotes efficiency, flexibility and coordination, as well as supports data-driven health recommendations to government decision makers. Countries pursuing NPHI establishment can weigh the potential challenges and benefits of consolidating functions when determining which public health functions will comprise the NPHI, including clarity of role, access to resources, influence over decisions and political viability.

Preventing Childhood Adversity Through Economic Support and Social Norm Strategies.

Through the Essentials for Childhood program, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds 7 state health departments (states) to address the urgent public health problem of adverse childhood experiences and child abuse and neglect, in particular. Through interviews and document reviews, the paper highlights the early implementation of 2 primary prevention strategies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's child abuse and neglect technical package with the greatest potential for broad public health impact to prevent adverse childhood experiences-strengthening economic supports and changing social norms. States are focused on advancing family-friendly work policies such as paid family and medical leave, livable wage policies, flexible and consistent work schedules, as well as programs and policies that strengthen household financial security such as increasing access to Earned Income Tax Credit. In addition, states are launching campaigns that focus on reframing the way people think about child abuse and neglect and who is responsible for preventing it. State-level activities such as establishing a diverse coalition of partners, program champions, and state action planning have helped to leverage and align resources needed to implement, evaluate, and sustain programs. States are working to increase awareness and commitment to multisector efforts that reduce adverse childhood experiences and promote safe, stable, nurturing relationships and environments for children. Early learning from this funding opportunity indicates that using a public health approach, states are well positioned to implement comprehensive, primary prevention strategies and approaches to ensure population-level impact for preventing child abuse and neglect and other adverse childhood experience.