Practices Among Local Public Health Agencies to Support Evidence-Based Decision Making: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based decision making (EBDM) capacity in local public health departments is foundational to meeting both organizational and individual competencies and fulfilling expanded roles. In addition to on-the-job training, organizational supports are needed to prepare staff; yet, less is known in this area. This qualitative study explores supportive management practices instituted as part of a training and technical assistance intervention. DESIGN: This qualitative study used a semistructured interview guide to elicit participants' descriptions and perceptions via key informant interviews. Verbatim transcripts were coded and thematic analyses were conducted. SETTING: Local public health departments in a US Midwestern state participated in the project. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen middle managers and staff from 4 local health departments participated in remote, audio-recorded interviews. INTERVENTION: Following delivery of a 3½-day in-person training, the study team met with health department leadership teams for department selection of supportive agency policies and procedures to revise or newly create. Periodic remote meetings included collaborative problem-solving, sharing of informational resources, and encouragement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Included management practices instituted to support EBDM and impact on day-to-day work as described by the interview participants. RESULTS: Leadership and middle management practices deemed most helpful included dedicating staff; creating specific guidelines; setting expectations; and providing trainings, resources, and guidance. Health departments with a preexisting supportive organizational culture and climat e were able to move more quickly and fully to integrate supportive management practices. Workforce development included creation of locally tailored overviews for all staff members and onboarding of new staff. Staff wanted additional hands-on skill-building trainings. Several worked with partners to incorporate evidence-based processes into community health improvement plans. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing on-the-job experiential learning is needed to integrate EBDM principles into day-to-day public health practice. Management practices established by leadership teams and middle managers can create supportive work environments for EBDM integration.

Municipal officials' perspectives on policymaking for addressing obesity and health equity.

Background: Obesity evidence-based policies (EBPs) can make a lasting, positive impact on community health; however, policy development and enactment is complex and dependent on multiple forces. Aims and objectives: This study investigated key factors affecting municipal officials' policymaking for obesity and related health disparities. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 local officials from a selection of municipalities with high obesity or related health disparities across the United States between December 2020 and April 2021. Findings: Policymakers follow a general decision-making process with limited distinction between health and other policy areas. Factors affecting policymaking included: being informed about other local, state, and federal policy, conducting their own research using trustworthy sources, and seeking constituent and stakeholder perspectives. Key facilitators included the need for timely, relevant local data, and seeing or hearing from those impacted. Key local policymaking barriers included constituent opposition, misinformation, controversial issues with contentious solutions, and limited understanding of the connection between issues and obesity/health. Policymakers had a range of understanding about causes of health disparities, including views of individual choices, environmental influences on behaviors, and structural factors impacting health. To address health disparities, municipal officials described: a variety of roles policymakers can take, limitations based on the scope of government, challenges with intergovernmental collaboration or across government levels, ability of policymakers and government employees to understand the problem, and the challenge of framing health disparities given the social-political context. Discussion and conclusion: Understanding factors affecting the uptake of EBPs can inform local-level interventions that encourage EBP adoption.

Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments.

BACKGROUND: Public health resources are limited and best used for effective programs. This study explores associations of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs or continuing ineffective programs) with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making among U.S. local health departments. METHODS: The national U.S. sample for this cross-sectional study was stratified by local health department jurisdiction population size. One person was invited from each randomly selected local health department: the leader in chronic disease, or the director. Of 600 selected, 579 had valid email addresses; 376 completed the survey (64.9% response). Survey items assessed frequency of and reasons for mis-implementation. Participants indicated agreement with statements on organizational supports for evidence-based decision making (7-point Likert). RESULTS: Thirty percent (30.0%) reported programs often or always ended that should have continued (inappropriate termination); organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were not associated with the frequency of programs ending. The main reason given for inappropriate termination was grant funding ended (86.0%). Fewer (16.4%) reported programs often or always continued that should have ended (inappropriate continuation). Higher perceived organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were associated with less frequent inappropriate continuation (odds ratio = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79, 0.94). All organizational support factors were negatively associated with inappropriate continuation. Top reasons were sustained funding (55.6%) and support from policymakers (34.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Organizational supports for evidence-based decision making may help local health departments avoid continuing programs that should end. Creative mechanisms of support are needed to avoid inappropriate termination. Understanding what influences mis-implementation can help identify supports for de-implementation of ineffective programs so resources can go towards evidence-based programs.

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.

Factors Facilitating or Hindering Use of Evidence-Based Diabetes Interventions Among Local Health Departments.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess facilitators, barriers, and capacities to use of evidence-based programs and policies (EBPPs) in local health departments (LHDs). DESIGN: A qualitative study design was used to elicit a contextual understanding of factors. One-hour interviews were conducted among directors and diabetes/chronic disease practitioners from LHDs. A consensus coding approach was used to identify themes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four participants from 14 Missouri LHDs completed interviews. RESULTS: Themes were identified as facilitators, barriers, or capacities that enhance EBPP use. Facilitators included awareness of EBPPs, leadership and supervisor support of EBPP use, and facilitators to increase capacity to implement EBPPs. Skills development, targeted messaging, and understanding of evidence-based decision-making (EBDM) terminology were needed. Barriers to EBPPs use were described at the individual, organizational, and interorganizational levels and included community buy-in, limited resources, relevance to partners, and time scarcity. Capacities included the ways LHDs learn about EBPPs, methods that influence the use of EBPPs, and resources needed to sustain EBPPs. Top ways to learn about EBPPs were in-person interactions. Staff meetings, meetings with decision makers, and relevant evidence influenced decision making. Resources needed were funding, organizational capacity, and partnerships. Directors' and practitioners' views differed on type of agency culture that promoted EBPP use, preferences for learning about EBPPs, ways to influence decisions, needs, and barriers to EBPPs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can inform future strategies to support uptake of EBPPs in diabetes and chronic disease control in LHDs. LHDs have a good understanding of EBPPs, but subtle differences in perception of EBPPs and needs exist between directors and practitioners. Investment in capacity building and fostering an organizational culture supportive of EBDM were key implications for practice. By investing in employee skill development, LHDs may increase agency capacity. Researchers should use preferred channels and targeted messaging to disseminate findings.

Evidence-Based Public Health Provided Through Local Health Departments: Importance of Academic-Practice Partnerships.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which US local health departments (LHDs) are engaged in evidence-based public health and whether this is influenced by the presence of an academic health department (AHD) partnership. METHODS: We surveyed a cross-sectional stratified random sample of 579 LHDs in 2017. We ascertained the extent of support for evidence-based decision-making and the use of evidence-based interventions in several chronic disease programs and whether the LHD participated in a formal, informal, or no AHD partnership. RESULTS: We received 376 valid responses (response rate 64.9%). There were 192 (51.6%) LHDs with a formal, 80 (21.6%) with an informal, and 99 (26.7%) with no AHD partnership. Participants with formal AHD partnerships reported higher perceived organizational supports for evidence-based decision-making and interventions compared with either informal or no AHD partnerships. The odds of providing 1 or more chronic disease evidence-based intervention were significantly higher in LHDs with formal AHD partnerships compared with LHDs with no AHD partnerships (adjusted odds ratio = 2.3; 95% confidence interval = 1.3, 4.0). CONCLUSIONS: Formal academic-practice partnerships can be important means for advancing evidence-based decision-making and for implementing evidence-based programs and policies.

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.

Effectively communicating with local policymakers: a randomized trial of policy brief dissemination to address obesity.

Introduction: Evidence-based policies are a powerful tool for impacting health and addressing obesity. Effectively communicating evidence to policymakers is critical to ensure evidence is incorporated into policies. While all public health is local, limited knowledge exists regarding effective approaches for improving local policymakers' uptake of evidence-based policies. Methods: Local policymakers were randomized to view one of four versions of a policy brief (usual care, narrative, risk-framing, and narrative/risk-framing combination). They then answered a brief survey including questions about their impressions of the brief, their likelihood of using it, and how they determine legislative priorities. Results: Responses from 331 participants indicated that a majority rated local data (92%), constituent needs/opinions (92%), and cost-effectiveness data (89%) as important or very important in determining what issues they work on. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that briefs were understandable (87%), believable (77%), and held their attention (74%) with no brief version rated significantly higher than the others. Across the four types of briefs, 42% indicated they were likely to use the brief. Logistic regression models showed that those indicating that local data were important in determining what they work on were over seven times more likely to use the policy brief than those indicating that local data were less important in determining what they work on (aOR = 7.39, 95% CI = 1.86,52.57). Discussion: Among local policymakers in this study there was no dominant format or type of policy brief; all brief types were rated similarly highly. This highlights the importance of carefully crafting clear, succinct, credible, and understandable policy briefs, using different formats depending on communication objectives. Participants indicated a strong preference for receiving materials incorporating local data. To ensure maximum effect, every effort should be made to include data relevant to a policymaker's local area in policy communications.

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.

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.

Patterns and correlates of use of evidence-based interventions to control diabetes by local health departments across the USA.

OBJECTIVE: The nearly 3000 local health departments (LHDs) nationwide are the front line of public health and are positioned to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for diabetes control. Yet little is currently known about use of diabetes-related EBIs among LHDs. This study used a national online survey to determine the patterns and correlates of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Guide-recommended EBIs for diabetes control in LHDs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to survey a stratified random sample of LHDs regarding department characteristics, respondent characteristics, evidence-based decision making within the LHD, and delivery of EBIs (directly or in collaboration) within five categories (diabetes-related, nutrition, physical activity, obesity, and tobacco). Associations between delivering EBIs and respondent and LHD characteristics and evidence-based decision making were explored using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among 240 LHDs there was considerable variation among the EBIs delivered. Diabetes prevalence in the state was positively associated with offering the Diabetes Prevention Program (OR=1.28 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.62)), diabetes self-management education (OR=1.32 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.67)), and identifying patients and determining treatment (OR=1.27 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.54)). Although all organizational supports for evidence-based decision making factors were related in a positive direction, the only significant association was between evaluation capacity and identifying patients with diabetes and determining effective treatment (OR=1.54 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.19)). CONCLUSION: Supporting evidence-based decision making and increasing the implementation of these EBIs by more LHDs can help control diabetes nationwide.

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.