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 (ß = -0.55, SE = 0.27, p = 0.041) and distance or blended training (ß = -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.

Implementing administrative evidence based practices: lessons from the field in six local health departments across the United States.

BACKGROUND: Administrative evidence based practices (A-EBPs) are agency level structures and activities positively associated with performance measures (e.g., achieving core public health functions, carrying out evidence-based interventions). The objectives of this study were to examine the contextual conditions and explore differences in local health department (LHD) characteristics that influence the implementation of A-EBPs. METHODS: Qualitative case studies were conducted based on data from 35 practitioners in six LHDs across the United States. The sample was chosen using an A-EBP score from our 2012 national survey and was linked to secondary data from the National Public Health Performance Standards Program. Three LHDs that scored high and three LHDs that scored low on both measures were selected as case study sites. The 37-question interview guide explored LHD use of an evidence based decision making process, including A-EBPs and evidence-based programs and policies. Each interview took 30-60 min. Standard qualitative methodology was used for data coding and analysis using NVivo software. RESULTS: As might be expected, high-capacity LHDs were more likely to have strong leadership, partnerships, financial flexibility, workforce development activities, and an organizational culture supportive of evidence based decision making and implementation of A-EBPs. They were also more likely to describe having strong or important relationships with universities and other educational resources, increasing their access to resources and allowing them to more easily share knowledge and expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between high- and low-capacity LHDs in A-EBP domains highlight the importance of investments in these areas and the potential those investments have to contribute to overall efficiency and performance. Further research may identify avenues to enhance resources in these domains to create an organizational culture supportive of A-EBPs.

Understanding mis-implementation in public health practice.

INTRODUCTION: A better understanding of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs and policies or continuing ineffective ones) may provide important information for decision makers. The purpose of this study is to describe the frequency and patterns in mis-implementation of programs in state and local health departments in the U.S. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 944 public health practitioners was conducted. The sample included state (n=277) and local health department employees (n=398) and key partners from other agencies (n=269). Data were collected from October 2013 through June 2014 (analyzed in May through October 2014). Online survey questions focused on ending programs that should continue, continuing programs that should end, and reasons for endings. RESULTS: Among state health department employees, 36.5% reported that programs often or always end that should have continued, compared with 42.0% of respondents in local health departments and 38.3% of respondents working in other agencies. In contrast to ending programs that should have continued, 24.7% of state respondents reported programs often or always continuing when they should have ended, compared to 29.4% for local health departments and 25% of respondents working in other agencies. Certain reasons for program endings differed at the state versus local level (e.g., policy support, support from agency leadership), suggesting that actions to address mis-implementation are likely to vary. CONCLUSIONS: The current data suggest a need to focus on mis-implementation in public health practice in order to make the best use of scarce resources.

Importance of scientific resources among local public health practitioners.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the perceived importance of scientific resources for decision-making among local health department (LHD) practitioners in the United States. METHODS: We used data from LHD practitioners (n = 849). Respondents ranked important decision-making resources, methods for learning about public health research, and academic journal use. We calculated descriptive statistics and used logistic regression to measure associations of individual and LHD characteristics with importance of scientific resources. RESULTS: Systematic reviews of scientific literature (24.7%) were most frequently ranked as important among scientific resources, followed by scientific reports (15.9%), general literature review articles (6.5%), and 1 or a few scientific studies (4.8%). Graduate-level education (adjusted odds ratios [AORs] = 1.7-3.5), larger LHD size (AORs = 2.0-3.5), and leadership support (AOR = 1.6; 95% confidence interval = 1.1, 2.3) were associated with a higher ranking of importance of scientific resources. CONCLUSIONS: Graduate training, larger LHD size, and leadership that supports a culture of evidence-based decision-making may increase the likelihood of practitioners viewing scientific resources as important. Targeting communication channels that practitioners view as important can also guide research dissemination strategies.

Training needs and supports for evidence-based decision making among the public health workforce in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Preparing the public health workforce to practice evidence-based decision making (EBDM) is necessary to effectively impact health outcomes. Few studies report on training needs in EBDM at the national level in the United States. We report competency gaps to practice EBDM based on four U.S. national surveys we conducted with the state and local public health workforce between 2008 and 2013. METHODS: We compared self-reported data from four U.S. national online surveys on EBDM conducted between 2008 and 2013. Participants rated the importance of each EBDM competency then rated how available the competency is to them when needed on a Likert scale. We calculated a gap score by subtracting availability scores from importance scores. We compared mean gaps across surveys and utilized independent samples t tests and Cohen's d values to compare state level gaps. In addition, participants in the 2013 state health department survey selected and ranked three items that "would most encourage you to utilize EBDM in your work" and items that "would be most useful to you in applying EBDM in your work". We calculated the percentage of participants who ranked each item among their top three. RESULTS: The largest competency gaps were consistent across all four surveys: economic evaluation, communicating research to policymakers, evaluation designs, and adapting interventions. Participants from the 2013 state level survey reported significantly larger mean importance and availability scores (p <0.001, d =1.00, and p <0.001, d = .78 respectively) and smaller mean gaps (p <0.01, d = .19) compared to the 2008 survey. Participants most often selected "leaders prioritizing EBDM" (67.9%) among top ways to encourage EBDM use. "EBDM training for specific areas" was most commonly ranked as important in applying EBDM (64.3%). CONCLUSION: Perceived importance and availability of EBDM competencies may be increasing as supports for EBDM continue to grow through trends in funding, training, and resources. However, more capacity building is needed overall, with specific attention to the largest competency gaps. More work with public health departments to both situate trainings to boost competency in these areas and continued improvements for organizational practices (leadership prioritization) are possible next steps to sustain EBDM efforts.

Capacity building for evidence-based decision making in local health departments: scaling up an effective training approach.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies describing how to scale up effective capacity-building approaches for public health practitioners. This study tested local-level evidence-based decision making (EBDM) capacity-building efforts in four U.S. states (Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington) with a quasi-experimental design. METHODS: Partners within the four states delivered a previously established Evidence-Based Public Health (EBPH) training curriculum to local health department (LHD) staff. They worked with the research team to modify the curriculum with local data and examples while remaining attentive to course fidelity. Pre- and post-assessments of course participants (n=82) and an external control group (n=214) measured importance, availability (i.e., how available a skill is when needed, either within the skillset of the respondent or among others in the agency), and gaps in ten EBDM competencies. Simple and multiple linear regression models assessed the differences between pre- and post-assessment scores. Course participants also assessed the impact of the course on their work. RESULTS: Course participants reported greater increases in the availability, and decreases in the gaps, in EBDM competencies at post-test, relative to the control group. In adjusted models, significant differences (p<0.05) were found in 'action planning,' 'evaluation design,' 'communicating research to policymakers,' 'quantifying issues (using descriptive epidemiology),' and 'economic evaluation.' Nearly 45% of participants indicated that EBDM increased within their agency since the training. Course benefits included becoming better leaders and making scientifically informed decisions. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential for improving EBDM capacity among LHD practitioners using a train-the-trainer approach involving diverse partners. This approach allowed for local tailoring of strategies and extended the reach of the EBPH course.

Evidence-based public health practice among program managers in local public health departments.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the use of administrative-evidence based practices (A-EBPs) among managers of programs in chronic diseases, environmental health, and infectious diseases from a sample of local health departments (LHDs) in the United States. DESIGN: Program managers completed a survey consisting of 6 sections (biographical data, use of A-EBPs, diffusion attributes, use of resources, and barriers to, and competencies in, evidence-based public health), with a total of 66 questions. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent electronically to 168 program managers in chronic diseases, 179 in environmental health, and 175 in infectious diseases, representing 228 LHDs. The survey had previously been completed by 517 LHD directors. MEASURES: The use of A-EBPs was scored for 19 individual A-EBPs, across the 5 A-EBP domains, and for all domains combined. Individual characteristics were derived from the survey responses, with additional data on LHDs drawn from linked National Association of County & City Health Officials Profile survey data. Results for program managers were compared across the 3 types of programs and to responses from the previous survey of LHD directors. The scores were ordered and categorized into tertiles. Unconditional logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, comparing individual and agency characteristics for those with the highest third of A-EBPs scores with those with the lowest third. RESULTS: The 332 total responses from program managers represented 196 individual LHDs. Program managers differed (across the 3 programs, and compared with LHD directors) in demographic characteristics, education, and experience. The use of A-EBPs varied widely across specific practices and individuals, but the pattern of responses from directors and program managers was very similar for the majority of A-EBPs. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the differences in educational background, experience, organizational culture, and performance of A-EBPs between program managers and LHD directors is a necessary step to improving competencies in evidence-based public health.

Understanding administrative evidence-based practices: findings from a survey of local health department leaders.

BACKGROUND: There are sparse data showing the extent to which evidence-based public health is occurring among local health departments. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to describe the patterns and predictors of administrative evidence-based practices (structures and activities that are associated with performance measures) in a representative sample of local health departments in the U.S. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 517 local health department directors was conducted from October through December 2012 (analysis in January-March 2013). The questions on administrative evidence-based practices included 19 items based on a recent literature review (five broad domains: workforce development, leadership, organizational climate and culture, relationships and partnerships, financial processes). RESULTS: There was a wide range in performance among the 19 individual administrative evidence-based practices, ranging from 35% for providing access to current information on evidence-based practices to 96% for funding via a variety of sources Among the five domains, values were generally lowest for organizational climate and culture (mean for the domain=49.9%) and highest for relationships and partnerships (mean for the domain=77.1%). Variables associated with attaining the highest tertile of administrative evidence-based practices included having a population jurisdiction of 25,000 or larger (adjusted ORs [aORs] ranging from 4.4 to 7.5) and state governance structure (aOR=3.1). CONCLUSIONS: This research on the patterns and predictors of administrative evidence-based practices in health departments provides information on gaps and areas for improvement that can be linked with ongoing quality improvement processes.

Association between community garden participation and fruit and vegetable consumption in rural Missouri.

BACKGROUND: Fruit and vegetable consumption reduces chronic disease risk, yet the majority of Americans consume fewer than recommended. Inadequate access to fruits and vegetables is increasingly recognized as a significant contributor to low consumption of healthy foods. Emerging evidence shows the effectiveness of community gardens in increasing access to, and consumption of, fruits and vegetables. METHODS: Two complementary studies explored the association of community garden participation and fruit and vegetable consumption in rural communities in Missouri. The first was with a convenience sample of participants in a rural community garden intervention who completed self-administered surveys. The second was a population-based survey conducted with a random sample of 1,000 residents in the intervention catchment area. RESULTS: Participation in a community garden was associated with higher fruit and vegetable consumption. The first study found that individuals who worked in a community garden at least once a week were more likely to report eating fruits and vegetables because of their community garden work (X² (125) = 7.78, p = .0088). Population-based survey results show that 5% of rural residents reported participating in a community garden. Those who reported community garden participation were more likely to report eating fruits 2 or more times per day and vegetables 3 or more times per day than those who did not report community garden participation, even after adjusting for covariates (Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.76, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.35 to 5.65). CONCLUSION: These complementary studies provide evidence that community gardens are a promising strategy for promoting fruit and vegetable consumption in rural communities.

Understanding and addressing barriers to implementation of environmental and policy interventions to support physical activity and healthy eating in rural communities.

PURPOSE: Rural residents are at greater risk of obesity than urban and suburban residents. Failure to meet physical activity and healthy eating recommendations play a role. Emerging evidence shows the effectiveness of environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity and healthy eating. Yet most of the evidence comes from urban and suburban communities. The objectives of this study were to (1) identify types of environmental and policy interventions being implemented in rural communities to promote physical activity or healthy eating, (2) identify barriers to the implementation of environmental or policy interventions, and (3) identify strategies rural communities have employed to overcome these barriers. METHODS: Key informant interviews with public health professionals working in rural areas in the United States were conducted in 2010. A purposive sample included 15 practitioners engaged in planning, implementing, or evaluating environmental or policy interventions to promote physical activity or healthy eating. FINDINGS: Our findings reveal that barriers in rural communities include cultural differences, population size, limited human capital, and difficulty demonstrating the connection between social and economic policy and health outcomes. Key informants identified a number of strategies to overcome these barriers such as developing broad-based partnerships and building on the existing infrastructure. CONCLUSION: Recent evidence suggests that environmental and policy interventions have potential to promote physical activity and healthy eating at the population level. To realize positive outcomes, it is important to provide opportunities to implement these types of interventions and document their effectiveness in rural communities.

Fostering more-effective public health by identifying administrative evidence-based practices: a review of the literature.

CONTEXT: The aim of evidence-based decision-making in public health involves the integration of science-based interventions with community preferences to improve population health. Although considerable literature is available on the development and adoption of evidence-based guidelines and barriers to their implementation, the evidence base specific to public health administration is less developed. This article reviews the literature from public health and related disciplines to identify administrative evidence-based practices (A-EBPs; i.e., agency-level structures and activities that are positively associated with performance measures). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A "review of reviews" was carried out to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of A-EBPs covering the time frame January 2000 through March 2012. The following steps were used: (1) select databases; (2) determine search parameters and conduct the search; (3) screen titles and abstracts; (4) obtain selected documents; (5) perform initial synthesis; (6) abstract data; and (7) synthesize evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In both the reviews and original empiric studies, the most common outcome reported was performance of the local health department or local public health system. On the basis of a synthesis of data from 20 reviews, a total of 11 high-priority A-EBPs were identified (i.e., practices that local public health systems potentially can modify within a few years). The A-EBPs covered five major domains of workforce development, leadership, organizational climate and culture, relationships and partnerships, and financial processes. CONCLUSIONS: As the body of practice-based research continues to grow and the ability to measure administrative evidence-based practices improves, this initial list can be further developed and improved.