Planting Seeds for Food Is Medicine: Pre-Implementation Planning Methods and Formative Evaluation Findings From a Multi-Clinic Initiative in the Midwest.

Food is medicine (FIM) initiatives are an emerging strategy for addressing nutrition-related health disparities increasingly endorsed by providers, payers, and policymakers. However, food insecurity screening protocols and oversight of medically-tailored food assistance programs are novel for many healthcare settings. Here, we describe the pre-implementation planning processes used to successfully engage federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs) across Kansas to develop new FIM initiatives. A Kansas-based philanthropic foundation facilitated pre-implementation planning for FQHCs over 17 months across 3 stages: 1) Community inquiry, 2) FIM learning event with invitation for FQHC attendees to request pre-implementation funding, and 3) Pre-implementation planning workshops and application assignments for FQHC grantees to develop a FIM implementation grant proposal. We evaluated satisfaction and perceived utility of these pre-implementation planning activities via post-workshop surveys and qualitative comparisons of FIM design components from pre-implementation and implementation grant applications. All 7 FQHCs attending the learning event applied for and were awarded pre-implementation planning grants; 6 submitted an implementation grant application following workshop completion. FQHCs rated pre-implementation support activities favorably; however, most clinics cited limited staff as a barrier to effective planning. As compared to pre-implementation planning grant proposals, all FQHCs elected to narrow their priority population to people with pre-diabetes or diabetes with better articulation of evidence-based nutrition prescriptions and intervention models in their final program designs. In the midst of a nationwide FIM groundswell, we recommend that funders, clinic stakeholders, and evaluators work together to devise and financially support appropriate pre-implementation planning activities prior to launching new FIM initiatives.

A survey tool for measuring evidence-based decision making capacity in public health agencies.

BACKGROUND: While increasing attention is placed on using evidence-based decision making (EBDM) to improve public health, there is little research assessing the current EBDM capacity of the public health workforce. Public health agencies serve a wide range of populations with varying levels of resources. Our survey tool allows an individual agency to collect data that reflects its unique workforce. METHODS: Health department leaders and academic researchers collaboratively developed and conducted cross-sectional surveys in Kansas and Mississippi (USA) to assess EBDM capacity. Surveys were delivered to state- and local-level practitioners and community partners working in chronic disease control and prevention. The core component of the surveys was adopted from a previously tested instrument and measured gaps (importance versus availability) in competencies for EBDM in chronic disease. Other survey questions addressed expectations and incentives for using EBDM, self-efficacy in three EBDM skills, and estimates of EBDM within the agency. RESULTS: In both states, participants identified communication with policymakers, use of economic evaluation, and translation of research to practice as top competency gaps. Self-efficacy in developing evidence-based chronic disease control programs was lower than in finding or using data. Public health practitioners estimated that approximately two-thirds of programs in their agency were evidence-based. Mississippi participants indicated that health department leaders' expectations for the use of EBDM was approximately twice that of co-workers' expectations and that the use of EBDM could be increased with training and leadership prioritization. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of EBDM capacity in Kansas and Mississippi built upon previous nationwide findings to identify top gaps in core competencies for EBDM in chronic disease and to estimate a percentage of programs in U.S. health departments that are evidence-based. The survey can serve as a valuable tool for other health departments and non-governmental organizations to assess EBDM capacity within their own workforce and to assist in the identification of approaches that will enhance the uptake of EBDM processes in public health programming and policymaking. Localized survey findings can provide direction for focusing workforce training programs and can indicate the types of incentives and policies that could affect the culture of EBDM in the workplace.