Charting the Advocacy Landscape: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Syllabi in Public Health Graduate Education.

CONTEXT: Addressing public health challenges necessitates policy approaches, but concerns persist about public health graduates' preparedness to advocate. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study sought to assess advocacy content and skills taught to Master of Public Health students enrolled in US accredited schools and programs of public health (SPPHs) by analyzing 98 course syllabi submitted to the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) between 2019 and 2021. Syllabi were submitted by SPPHs during their (re)accreditation process to demonstrate compliance with CEPH's advocacy competency requirement. DESIGN: Qualitative content analysis study. Syllabi were analyzed using MAXQDA Qualitative Data Analysis Software using a 2-coder approach. SETTING: SPPHs accredited by CEPH. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-eight syllabi submitted to CEPH by 22 schools of public health and 54 programs of public health. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exemplary language from advocacy courses and assignments and aggregate frequency of syllabi advocacy content and skills. RESULTS: Most advocacy courses (61%) were survey, health policy, or health care delivery courses, covering policy (66%), policy communication (46%), coalition-building (45%), lobbying (36%), community organizing (33%), and media advocacy (24%) skills. Only 7% prioritized advocacy skill instruction, and 10% addressed how to advocate in an equitable way. CONCLUSIONS: Defining public health advocacy and essential skills is crucial. Issuing competency guidelines, supporting advocacy faculty, offering standardized training, and expanding experiential learning are important first steps. More research is needed on how academic institutions are incorporating equity skill training into courses, whether separate from or combined with advocacy skills.

Multisector Health Policy Networks in 15 Large US Cities.

CONTEXT: Local health departments (LHDs) have historically not prioritized policy development, although it is one of the 3 core areas they address. One strategy that may influence policy in LHD jurisdictions is the formation of partnerships across sectors to work together on local public health policy. DESIGN: We used a network approach to examine LHD local health policy partnerships across 15 large cities from the Big Cities Health Coalition. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed the health departments and their partners about their working relationships in 5 policy areas: core local funding, tobacco control, obesity and chronic disease, violence and injury prevention, and infant mortality. OUTCOME MEASURES: Drawing on prior literature linking network structures with performance, we examined network density, transitivity, centralization and centrality, member diversity, and assortativity of ties. RESULTS: Networks included an average of 21.8 organizations. Nonprofits and government agencies made up the largest proportions of the networks, with 28.8% and 21.7% of network members, whereas for-profits and foundations made up the smallest proportions in all of the networks, with just 1.2% and 2.4% on average. Mean values of density, transitivity, diversity, assortativity, centralization, and centrality showed similarity across policy areas and most LHDs. The tobacco control and obesity/chronic disease networks were densest and most diverse, whereas the infant mortality policy networks were the most centralized and had the highest assortativity. Core local funding policy networks had lower scores than other policy area networks by most network measures. CONCLUSION: Urban LHDs partner with organizations from diverse sectors to conduct local public health policy work. Network structures are similar across policy areas jurisdictions. Obesity and chronic disease, tobacco control, and infant mortality networks had structures consistent with higher performing networks, whereas core local funding networks had structures consistent with lower performing networks.

Organizational characteristics of large urban health departments.

Approximately 150 million Americans lived in large metropolitan jurisdictions in 2013. About 1 in 7 Americans is served by a member of the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC), a group of 20 of the largest local health departments (LHDs) in the United States. In this brief, we describe the organizational characteristics of the country's largest health departments, including those that form the BCHC, and quantify the differences and variation among them. We conducted secondary analyses of the 2013 National Association of County & City Health Officials Profile, specifically characterizing differences between BCHC members and other large LHDs. The data set contained 2000 LHDs that responded to National Association of County & City Health Officials' 2013 Profile. While LHDs serving 500,000 or more people account for only 5% of all LHDs, they covered 50% of the US population in 2013. The BCHC members served approximately 46 million people. The BCHC LHDs had a greater number of staff, larger budgets, and were more involved in policy than their larger peers.

Perceived impacts of health care reform on large urban health departments.

CONTEXT: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is changing the landscape of health systems across the United States, as well as the functioning of governmental public health departments. As a result, local health departments are reevaluating their roles, objectives, and the services they provide. OBJECTIVE: We gathered perspectives on the current and future impact of the ACA on governmental public health departments from leaders of local health departments in the Big Cities Health Coalition, which represents some of the largest local health departments in the country. DESIGN: We conducted interviews with 45 public health officials in 16 participating Big Cities Health Coalition departments. We analyzed data reflecting participants' perspectives on potential changes in programs and services, as well as on challenges and opportunities created by the ACA. RESULTS: Respondents uniformly indicated that they expected ACA to have a positive impact on population health. Most participants expected to conduct more population-oriented activities because of the ACA, but there was no consensus about how the ACA would impact the clinical services that their departments could offer. Local health department leaders suggested that the ACA might create a broad range of opportunities that would support public health as a whole, including expanded insurance coverage for the community, greater opportunity to collaborate with Accountable Care Organizations, increased focus on core public health issues, and increased integration with health care and social services. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders of some of the largest health departments in the United States uniformly acknowledged that realignments in funding prompted by the ACA are changing the roles that their offices can play in controlling infectious diseases, providing robust maternal and child health services, and more generally providing a social safety net for health care services in their communities. Health departments will continue to need strong leaders to strengthen and maintain their critical role in protecting and promoting the health of the public they serve.

What gets measured gets done: an assessment of local data uses and needs in large urban health departments.

CONTEXT: The epidemiologic shift in the leading causes of mortality from infectious disease to chronic disease has created significant challenges for public health surveillance at the local level. OBJECTIVE: We describe how the largest US city health departments identify and use data to inform their work and we identify the data and information that local public health leaders have specified as being necessary to help better address specific problems in their communities. DESIGN: We used a mixed-methods design that included key informant interviews, as well as a smaller embedded survey to quantify organizational characteristics related to data capacity. Interview data were independently coded and analyzed for major themes around data needs, barriers, and achievements. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five public health leaders from each of 3 specific positions-local health official, chief of policy, and chief science or medical officer-in 16 large urban health departments. RESULTS: Public health leaders in large urban local health departments reported that timely data and data on chronic disease that are available at smaller geographical units are difficult to obtain without additional resources. Despite departments' successes in creating ad hoc sources of local data to effect policy change, all participants described the need for more timely data that could be geocoded at a neighborhood or census tract level to more effectively target their resources. Electronic health records, claims data, and hospital discharge data were identified as sources of data that could be used to augment the data currently available to local public health leaders. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring the status of community health indicators and using the information to identify priority issues are core functions of all public health departments. Public health professionals must have access to timely "hyperlocal" data to detect trends, allocate resources to areas of greatest priority, and measure the effectiveness of interventions. Although innovations in the largest local health departments in large urban areas have established some methods to obtain local data on chronic disease, leaders recognize that there is an urgent need for more timely and more geographically specific data at the neighborhood or census tract level to efficiently and effectively address the most pressing problems in public health.

The future of urban health: needs, barriers, opportunities, and policy advancement at large urban health departments.

CONTEXT: More than 2800 local health departments (LHDs) provide public health services to more than 300 million individuals in the United States. This study focuses on departments serving the most populous districts in the nation, including the members of the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC) in 2013. OBJECTIVE: To systematically gather leadership perspectives on the most pressing issues facing large, urban health departments. In addition, to quantify variation in policy involvement between BCHC LHDs and other LHDs. DESIGN: We used a parallel mixed-methods approach, including interviews with 45 leaders from the BCHC departments, together with secondary data analysis of the National Association of County & City Health Officials' (NACCHO) 2013 Profile data. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five local health officials, chiefs of policy, and chief science/medical officers from 16 BCHC LHDs. RESULTS: The BCHC departments are more actively involved in policy at the state and federal levels than are other LHDs. All BCHC members participated in at least 1 of the 5 policy areas that NACCHO tracks at the local level, 89% at the state level, and 74% at the federal level. Comparatively, overall 81% of all LHDs participated in any of the 5 areas at the local level, 57% at the state level, and 15% at the federal level. The BCHC leaders identified barriers they face in their work, including insufficient funding, political challenges, bureaucracy, lack of understanding of issues by key decision makers, and workforce competency. CONCLUSIONS: As more people in the United States are living in metropolitan areas, large, urban health departments are playing increasingly important roles in protecting and promoting public health. The BCHC LHDs are active in policy change to improve health, but are limited by insufficient funding, governmental bureaucracy, and workforce development challenges.

Practice-based teaching for health policy action and advocacy.

The Institute of Medicine has issued numerous reports calling for the public health workforce to be adept in policy-making, communication, science translation, and other advocacy skills. Public health competencies include advocacy capabilities, but few public health graduate institutions provide systematic training for translating public health science into policy action. Specialized health-advocacy training is needed to provide future leaders with policy-making knowledge and skills in generating public support, policy-maker communications, and policy campaign operations that could lead to improvements in the outcomes of public health initiatives. Advocacy training should draw on nonprofit and government practitioners who have a range of advocacy experiences and skills. This article describes a potential model curriculum for introductory health-advocacy theory and skills based on the course, Health Advocacy, a winner of the Delta Omega Innovative Public Health Curriculum Award, at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland.

Bearing Fruit: The Fight For The FDA's Food Safety Reforms.

A food safety advocate recounts one long road to the passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011.

The Relationship of Policymaking and Networking Characteristics among Leaders of Large Urban Health Departments.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between policy networks and policy development among local health departments (LHDs) is a growing area of interest to public health practitioners and researchers alike. In this study, we examine policy activity and ties between public health leadership across large urban health departments. METHODS: This study uses data from a national profile of local health departments as well as responses from a survey sent to three staff members (local health official, chief of policy, chief science officer) in each of 16 urban health departments in the United States. Network questions related to frequency of contact with health department personnel in other cities. Using exponential random graph models, network density and centrality were examined, as were patterns of communication among those working on several policy areas using exponential random graph models. RESULTS: All 16 LHDs were active in communicating about chronic disease as well as about use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (ATOD). Connectedness was highest among local health officials (density = .55), and slightly lower for chief science officers (d = .33) and chiefs of policy (d = .29). After accounting for organizational characteristics, policy homophily (i.e., when two network members match on a single characteristic) and tenure were the most significant predictors of formation of network ties. CONCLUSION: Networking across health departments has the potential for accelerating the adoption of public health policies. This study suggests similar policy interests and formation of connections among senior leadership can potentially drive greater connectedness among other staff.

Leveraging the nation's anti-bioterrorism investments: foundation efforts to ensure a revitalized public health system.

The emerging potential threats of bioterrorism combined with critical existing epidemics facing the United States call for immediate and urgent attention to the U.S. public health system. The foundation world is helping to answer that call and is sounding the alarm that our health defenses must be able to do "double duty" to protect us from the full spectrum of modern health threats. This Special Report presents a selective sample of recent and ongoing grant activities designed to revitalize and modernize the public health infrastructure, which is vital to protecting the nation's health and ensuring its safety.