Program adaptation by health departments.

Introduction: The dissemination of evidence-based interventions (i.e., programs, practices, and policies) is a core function of US state health departments (SHDs). However, interventions are originally designed and tested with a specific population and context. Hence, adapting the intervention to meet the real-world circumstances and population's needs can increase the likelihood of achieving the expected health outcomes for the target population from the implemented intervention. This study identified how SHD employees decide to adapt public health programs and what influences decisions on how to adapt them. Materials and methods: SHD employees (n = 45) were interviewed using a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Telephone interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were consensus-coded and themes were identified using thematic analysis. Several themes aligned with the Model for Adaptation Design and Impact. Results: Data, outcomes, and health department evaluations influenced decisions to adapt a program (pre-adaptation), and reasons to adapt a program included organizational and sociopolitical contextual factors. SHD middle-level managers, program managers and staff, and local agencies were involved in the decisions to adapt the programs. Finally, the goals for adapting a program included enhancing effectiveness/outcomes, reach and satisfaction with the program; funding; and partner engagement. After SHD employees decided to adapt a program, data and evidence guided the changes. Program staff and evaluators were engaged in the adaptation process. Program managers consulted partners to gather ideas on how best to adapt a program based on partners' experiences implementing the program and obtaining community input. Lastly, program managers also received input on adapting content and context from coalition meetings and periodic technical assistance calls. Discussion: The findings related to decisions to adapt public health programs provide practitioners with considerations for adapting them. Findings reaffirm the importance of promoting public health competencies in program evaluation and adaptation, as well as systematically documenting and evaluating the adaptation processes. In addition, the themes could be studied in future research as mechanisms, mediators, and moderators to implementation outcomes.

Adjusting the Equity Lens: Gaps in Addressing Health Equity in State Chronic Disease Prevention.

Purpose: Chronic diseases cause a significant proportion of mortality and morbidity in the United States, although risk factors and prevalence rates vary by population subgroups. State chronic disease prevention practitioners are positioned to address these issues, yet little is known about how health equity is being incorporated into their work. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of health equity in a sample of state chronic disease practitioners. Methods: Participants were selected in conjunction with a related evaluation of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD) capacity-building and evidence-based efforts. Four states were chosen for study based on variance in capacity. Directors in each of the states were interviewed and using snowball sampling, 8-12 practitioner interviews were conducted in each state, digitally audio recorded and transcribed. Using a comparative coding technique, themes and analyses were developed. Results: Comments from the practitioners fell into three main and inter-related categories. First, they discussed the varying degrees of integration of health equity in their work. The second theme was collaboration and the importance of working within and outside of departments, as well as with the community. The third theme related to measurement and the need for better data that can be used to garner support and measure impact. Conclusion: Chronic disease practitioners can play an important role in achieving health equity. Integrating this work more fully into chronic disease prevention and health promotion, developing strategic partnerships, tracking efforts, and measuring impact will improve practice and ultimately population health.