Sex and gender publications in brain health: a mapping review of the Asia-Pacific region.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting of sex and gender analysis in medical research has been shown to improve quality of the science and ensures findings are applicable to women and men. There is conflicting evidence on whether efforts by funding agencies and medical journals to encourage reporting of sex and gender analysis has resulted in tangible improvements. This study mapped the inclusion of sex and gender analysis in stroke and dementia research conducted in the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: A systematic search for Asia-Pacific stroke and dementia research was conducted in PubMed and papers included from the period 2012 to 2022. Eligible studies were reviewed for inclusion of a primary sex or gender focus and categorized by type of sex and gender analysis. Author gender was determined using an algorithm and its associations with inclusion of sex and gender analysis examined. RESULTS: Total Asia-Pacific publications increased from 109 in 2012 to 313 in 2022, but the rate of studies with a primary sex or gender focus did not increase significantly (R2 = 0.06, F(1,9) = 0.59, p = 0.46). Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea produced the most publications over the study period and were the only countries with at least 50 publications. The impact of author gender was mixed, with female first authorship associated with inclusion of sex or gender analysis and last female authorship associated with studies having a primary sex or gender focus. CONCLUSIONS: In the Asia-Pacific, brain health research is currently centered around high income countries and efforts are needed to ensure research findings are applicable through out the region. While there was a general increase in brain health publications over the last decade, the rate of sex and gender analysis was unchanged. This demonstrates that even with efforts in some countries in place, there is currently a lack of progress in the Asia-Pacific region to produce more research focusing on sex and gender analysis.

Benefits and Impacts of Public Health Accreditation for Small Local Health Departments.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to identify accreditation benefits and impacts among local health departments (LHDs) stratifying by size of population served to determine differences between small, medium, and large LHDs. BACKGROUND: The Public Health Accreditation Board operates the national accreditation program for public health departments, through which 306 LHDs have been accredited as of August 2022. Benefits of accreditation for LHDs are well documented, despite potential challenges and barriers to seeking accreditation. Research on the benefits of accreditation for small LHDs, specifically, is more limited. METHODS: All health departments that completed the accreditation process between December 2013 and May 2022 were surveyed following receipt of the accreditation decision. The analytic sample included 266 LHDs (response rate of 93.7%). Data for LHDs were analyzed for specific variables related to experiences, challenges, and benefits, and stratified by size to compare small LHDs with medium and large LHDs. Bivariate analyses were conducted to identify statistical significance. RESULTS: Generally, small LHDs reported similar outcomes of accreditation to medium and large LHDs. These included improvements in staff competencies, capacity to provide high-quality services, and relationships with partners. Small LHDs were significantly more likely than medium and large LHDs to report that accreditation increased their use of evidence-based practices. LHDs of all sizes reported an increase in quality improvement activities due to accreditation. Challenges for small LHDs included limited staff time or staff turnover and limited funding. CONCLUSIONS: The public health accreditation program has offered numerous benefits to LHDs of all sizes, including small LHDs. These accreditation benefits may be particularly important for small LHDs because of their critical role in the public health system and the ongoing need to support performance improvement, strengthen infrastructure, and increase resilience.

Nutrition Module design in Maintain Your Brain: an internet-based randomised controlled trial to prevent cognitive decline and dementia.

The Maintain Your Brain (MYB) trial is one of the largest internet-delivered multidomain randomised controlled trial designed to target modifiable risk factors for dementia. It comprises four intervention modules: physical activity, nutrition, mental health and cognitive training. This paper explains the MYB Nutrition Module, which is a fully online intervention promoting the adoption of the 'traditional' Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet) pattern for those participants reporting dietary intake that does not indicate adherence to a Mediterranean-type cuisine or those who have chronic diseases/risk factors for dementia known to benefit from this type of diet. Participants who were eligible for the Nutrition Module were assigned to one of the three diet streams: Main, Malnutrition and Alcohol group, according to their medical history and adherence to the MedDiet at baseline. A short dietary questionnaire was administered weekly during the first 10 weeks and then monthly during the 3-year follow-up to monitor whether participants adopted or maintained the MedDiet pattern during the intervention. As the Nutrition Module is a fully online intervention, resources that promoted self-efficacy, self-management and process of change were important elements to be included in the module development. The Nutrition Module is unique in that it is able to individualise the dietary advice according to both the medical and dietary history of each participant; the results from this unique intervention will contribute substantively to the evidence that links the Mediterranean-type diet with cognitive function and the prevention of dementia and will increase our understanding of the benefits of a MedDiet in a Western country.

Exploring the Linkage Between Accreditation Outcomes and Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response.

Public health emergency preparedness is a critical health department function. The national public health accreditation program may enhance public health preparedness by building the capabilities and overall capacity of health departments and also by improving capabilities specific to preparedness. This study presents findings from a survey sent to health departments 1 year after achieving accreditation, with a focus on accreditation outcomes related to public health preparedness. Between April 2014 and February 2020, 214 health departments responded to the survey. Most respondents indicated that accreditation had positively influenced their health department's performance within each of the selected topic areas that may influence public health preparedness: workforce development; quality improvement efforts; use of evidence and data to drive decisions; and partnerships, accountability, and credibility among external stakeholders. Enhancing overall health department capacity through accreditation may support the ability of health departments to prepare for, respond to, and recover from public health emergencies.

How Do We Define and Measure Health Equity? The State of Current Practice and Tools to Advance Health Equity.

INTRODUCTION: Healthy People establishes national goals and specific measurable objectives to improve the health and well-being of the nation. An overarching goal of Healthy People 2030 is to "eliminate health disparities, achieve health equity, and attain health literacy to improve the health and well-being of all." To inform Healthy People 2030 health equity and health disparities content and products, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), in collaboration with NORC at the University of Chicago, conducted a review of peer-reviewed and gray literature to examine how health equity is defined, conceptualized, and measured by public health professionals. METHODS: We reviewed (1) peer-reviewed literature, (2) HHS and other public health organization Web sites, and (3) state and territorial health department plans. We also conducted targeted searches of the gray literature to identify tools and recommendations for measuring health equity. RESULTS: While definitions of health equity identified in the scan varied, they often addressed similar concepts, including "highest level of health for all people," "opportunity for all," and "absence of disparities." Measuring health equity is challenging; however, strategies to measure and track progress toward health equity have emerged. There are a range of tools and resources that have the potential to help decision makers address health equity, such as health impact assessments, community health improvement plans, and adapting a Health in All Policies approach. Tools that visualize health equity data also support data-driven decision making. DISCUSSION: Using similar language when discussing health equity will help align and advance efforts to improve health and well-being for all. Healthy People objectives, measures, and targets can help public health professionals advance health equity in their work. HHS ODPHP continues to develop Healthy People tools and resources to support public health professionals as they work with cross-sector partners to achieve health equity.

Developing State Health Improvement Plans: Exploring States' Use of Healthy People.

BACKGROUND: While Healthy People outlines a national framework for improving the health of the nation, many states develop State Health Improvement Plans (SHIPs) to set priorities to improve the health of their residents. The purpose of this study was to understand the processes that states use to develop their SHIPs, how states align their SHIPs with Healthy People, and challenges that states face using Healthy People. METHODS: NORC conducted semistructured interviews with 9 state health department representatives who were responsible for SHIPs. The responses were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: State health departments used similar approaches to develop their SHIPs. Generally, states began the SHIP development process by performing community health assessments and then assembling diverse stakeholders to recommend key priority areas that should be addressed in the SHIP. States used a similar framework for their SHIPs, outlining priority areas, indicators, and targets. All respondents reported that they referenced Healthy People during the development of their SHIPs. Some states reported aligning their state plans with the Healthy People Framework, while others focused more on the specific Healthy People objectives or target setting guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Both the federal government and state public health agencies rely on input from stakeholders and cross-sector collaboration to ensure their initiatives reflect the diverse needs of their population. Stakeholder engagement is increasingly important as public health professionals are shifting toward a health equity approach that considers social determinants outside of the health care sector. Healthy People continues to strengthen this perspective by outlining national priorities on well-being while incorporating language around health equity issues. Reinforcing relationships between the federal government and state public health can help states better understand the role of Healthy People as well as encourage further dissemination of creative strategies and best practices.

Impact of Accreditation on Health Department Financial Resources.

CONTEXT: There is limited data available on the financial benefits of public health accreditation. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the financial impacts reported by public health departments as a result of participating in the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) national accreditation program. DESIGN: Data from an ongoing survey of outcomes among health departments accredited for 1 year were linked to PHAB administrative data on health department characteristics to examine self-reported financial impacts of accreditation as of June 2020. SETTING: Accredited public health departments in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Leadership from 214 unique state, local, Tribal, and Army installation health departments that had been accredited for 1 year by PHAB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Improved utilization of resources, increased competitiveness for funding opportunities, and new funding resulting from accreditation. RESULTS: One year following accreditation, 57% of all responding health departments reported improved utilization of resources whereas less than half reported improved competitiveness for funding (39%) and new funding (23%) as a result of accreditation. Health departments reporting new funding as a result of accreditation, compared with those that did not report new funding, were also more likely to report other outcomes from accreditation, including improved staff competencies, increased health department capacity to address health priorities and provide high-quality programs and services, increased use of evidence-based practices, new opportunities for external partnerships and collaboration, improved understanding of the health department's role among governing entities and policy makers, and improved credibility. Accredited local health departments (LHDs) with annual budgets less than $10 million reported new funding more often than LHDs with larger annual budgets. CONCLUSIONS: Accredited health departments that reported new funding were also more likely to report other outcomes of accreditation, including improved staff competencies, new partnerships, and improved credibility. More research is needed to further understand the relationship between accreditation and financial impacts.

Healthy People 2030 Leading Health Indicators and Overall Health and Well-being Measures: Opportunities to Assess and Improve the Health and Well-being of the Nation.

CONTEXT: Released by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) every decade since 1980, Healthy People identifies science-based objectives with targets to monitor progress and motivate and focus action. Healthy People 2030 is the current iteration of the Healthy People initiative. PROGRAM: Healthy People 2030 includes 3 sets of measures-Healthy People 2030 objectives, Leading Health Indicators (LHIs), and Overall Health and Well-being Measures (OHMs). Collectively, these components of Healthy People 2030 drive progress toward the initiative's vision of "a society in which all people can achieve their full potential for health and well-being across the life span." IMPLEMENTATION: The Healthy People 2030 LHIs and OHMs were developed with input from multiple subject matter experts and launched in December 2020. Designed as an entry point for users interested in improving the health of their communities and selected for their ability to improve health and well-being, the LHIs will be assessed annually. As broad, global outcome measures of overall health and well-being, the OHMs will be assessed at least 3 times before 2030. EVALUATION: The 23 LHIs are a subset of Healthy People 2030 core objectives that have been selected to drive action toward improved health and well-being. LHIs are intended to help organizations, communities, and states across the nation focus resources and efforts to improve the health and well-being of all people. The OHMs include 8 broad, global outcome measures of overall health and well-being that help assess progress toward the Healthy People 2030 vision. The Healthy People 2030 OHMs include the addition of a measure of overall well-being. DISCUSSION: Together with the Healthy People 2030 objectives, the LHIs and OHMs provide a plan of action to improve the health and well-being of the nation through a framework for assessing progress, addressing health disparities and social determinants of health, and advancing health equity.

Funding and Service Delivery in Rural and Urban Local US Health Departments in 2010 and 2016.

Objectives. To investigate differences in funding and service delivery between rural and urban local health departments (LHDs) in the United States.Methods. In this repeated cross-sectional study, we examined rural-urban differences in funding and service provision among LHDs over time using 2010 and 2016 National Association of County and City Health Officials data.Results. Local revenue among urban LHDs (41.2%) was higher than that in large rural (31.3%) and small rural LHDs (31.2%; P < .05). Small (20.9%) and large rural LHDs (19.8%) reported greater reliance on revenue from Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services than urban LHDs (11.5%; P < .05). All experienced decreases in clinical revenue between 2010 and 2016. Urban LHDs provided less primary care services in 2016; rural LHDs provided more mental health and substance abuse services (P < .05).Conclusions. Urban LHDs generated more revenues from local sources, and rural LHDs generated more from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and clinical services. Rural LHDs tended to provide more clinical services. Given rural LHDs' reliance on clinical revenue, decreases in clinical services could have disproportionate effects on them.Public Health Implications. Differences in financing and service delivery by rurality have an impact on the communities. Rural LHDs rely more heavily on state and federal dollars, which are vulnerable to changes in state and national health policy.

World-Wide FINGERS Network: A global approach to risk reduction and prevention of dementia.

Reducing the risk of dementia can halt the worldwide increase of affected people. The multifactorial and heterogeneous nature of late-onset dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), indicates a potential impact of multidomain lifestyle interventions on risk reduction. The positive results of the landmark multidomain Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) support such an approach. The World-Wide FINGERS (WW-FINGERS), launched in 2017 and including over 25 countries, is the first global network of multidomain lifestyle intervention trials for dementia risk reduction and prevention. WW-FINGERS aims to adapt, test, and optimize the FINGER model to reduce risk across the spectrum of cognitive decline-from at-risk asymptomatic states to early symptomatic stages-in different geographical, cultural, and economic settings. WW-FINGERS aims to harmonize and adapt multidomain interventions across various countries and settings, to facilitate data sharing and analysis across studies, and to promote international joint initiatives to identify globally implementable and effective preventive strategies.