The Public Health National Center for Innovations: An Initial Qualitative Evaluation.

CONTEXT: The Public Health National Center for Innovations (PHNCI) was launched in 2015 as a division of the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) to serve as a hub for fostering public health innovation and transformation. OBJECTIVES: We explored perspectives of key informants to assess PHNCI's work in its first 5 years, including implementation of activities, outputs, accomplishments, and opportunities. DESIGN: This qualitative study involved a Web site review; secondary document review; 15 interviews with 17 key informants purposively sampled from 2 groups-PHNCI and PHAB staff and leadership (PHNCI respondents), and external partners and collaborators (external respondents); and thematic analysis of qualitative data. SETTING: United States. RESULTS: PHNCI implemented its planned activities over the past 5 years-including grant programs and learning communities; large-scale public health initiatives; conferences, events, and convenings; webinar trainings; and resources, tools, and materials-resulting in more than 150 outputs. According to key informants, PHNCI's major accomplishments were as follows: contributed to an increased understanding and awareness of innovation in the public health field; provided grants and learning communities to support innovation; developed and disseminated materials to help practitioners innovate; established partnerships and promoted cross-sector collaboration; supported systems transformation; incorporated innovation into public health accreditation; and focused efforts to advance health equity. CONCLUSIONS: Going forward, PHNCI should continue to prioritize its core activities that support public health innovation and transformation; expand its work by addressing innovation in new public health topic areas; strengthen and expand its cross-sector work, partnerships, and activities to advance health equity and antiracism; and increase its visibility and reach, particularly within other sectors. Continued commitment and leadership are important for strengthening the capacity of the public health system to innovate, respond to ongoing and emerging public health threats and challenges, and advance health equity.

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.

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.

Factors Affecting Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices in Public Health Preparedness and Response.

CONTEXT: There is limited research on what factors are most salient to implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) among public health agencies in public health emergency preparedness and response (PHPR) and under what conditions EBP implementation will occur. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the conditions, barriers, and enablers affecting EBP implementation among the PHPR practice community and identified opportunities to support EBP implementation. DESIGN: A Web-based survey gathered information from public health agencies. Data obtained from 228 participating agencies were analyzed. SETTING: State, local, and territorial public health agencies across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Preparedness program officials from 228 public health agencies in the United States, including Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) cooperative agreement awardees (PHEP awardees) and a random sample of local health departments (LHDs). RESULTS: Respondents indicated that EBP is necessary and improves PHPR functions and tasks and that staff are interested in improving skills for EBP implementation. Top system-level barriers to EBP implementation were insufficient funding, lack of EBP, and lack of clarity regarding which practices are evidence based. PHEP awardees were significantly more likely to report a lack of EBP in the field, whereas LHDs were significantly more likely to report a lack of incentives. The top organizational-level barrier was insufficient staff. Most respondents indicated their agency culture supports EBP; however, LHDs were significantly more likely to report a lack of support from supervisors and leadership. Few respondents reported individual barriers to EBP implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate an opportunity to improve dissemination strategies, communication efforts, and incentives to support EBP implementation in PHPR. Potential strategies include improving awareness of and accessibility to EBPs through targeted dissemination efforts; building organizational capacity to support EBP implementation, particularly staff capacity, knowledge, and skills; and identifying funding and incentives to promote EBP uptake and sustainment.

Quality Improvement and Performance Management Benefits of Public Health Accreditation: National Evaluation Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the quality improvement (QI) and performance management benefits reported by public health departments as a result of participating in the national, voluntary program for public health accreditation implemented by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). DESIGN: We gathered quantitative data via Web-based surveys of all applicant and accredited public health departments when they completed 3 different milestones in the PHAB accreditation process. PARTICIPANTS: Leadership from 324 unique state, local, and tribal public health departments in the United States. RESULTS: Public health departments that have achieved PHAB accreditation reported the following QI and performance management benefits: improved awareness and focus on QI efforts; increased QI training among staff; perceived increases in QI knowledge among staff; implemented new QI strategies; implemented strategies to evaluate effectiveness and quality; used information from QI processes to inform decision making; and perceived achievement of a QI culture. The reported implementation of QI strategies and use of information from QI processes to inform decision making was greater among recently accredited health departments than among health departments that had registered their intent to apply but not yet undergone the PHAB accreditation process. Respondents from health departments that had been accredited for 1 year reported higher levels of staff QI training and perceived increases in QI knowledge than those that were recently accredited. CONCLUSIONS: PHAB accreditation has stimulated QI and performance management activities within public health departments. Health departments that pursue PHAB accreditation are likely to report immediate increases in QI and performance management activities as a result of undergoing the PHAB accreditation process, and these benefits are likely to be reported at a higher level, even 1 year after the accreditation decision.

Benefits and Perceptions of Public Health Accreditation Among Health Departments Not Yet Applying.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the benefits and perceptions among health departments not yet participating in the public health accreditation program implemented by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). DESIGN: Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered via Web-based surveys of health departments that had not yet applied for PHAB accreditation (nonapplicants) and health departments that had been accredited for 1 year. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents from 150 nonapplicant health departments and 57 health departments that had been accredited for 1 year. RESULTS: The majority of nonapplicant health departments are reportedly conducting a community health assessment (CHA), community health improvement plan (CHIP), and health department strategic plan-3 documents that are required to be in place before applying for PHAB accreditation. To develop these documents, most nonapplicants are reportedly referencing PHAB requirements. The most commonly reported perceived benefits of accreditation among health departments that planned to or were undecided about applying for accreditation were as follows: increased awareness of strengths and weaknesses, stimulated quality improvement (QI) and performance improvement activities, and increased awareness of/focus on QI. Nonapplicants that planned to apply reported a higher level of these perceived benefits. Compared with health departments that had been accredited for 1 year, nonapplicants were more likely to report that their staff had no or limited QI knowledge or familiarity. CONCLUSIONS: The PHAB accreditation program has influenced the broader public health field-not solely health departments that have undergone accreditation. Regardless of their intent to apply for accreditation, nonapplicant health departments are reportedly referencing PHAB guidelines for developing the CHA, CHIP, and health department strategic plan. Health departments may experience benefits associated with accreditation prior to their formal involvement in the PHAB accreditation process. The most common challenge for health departments applying for accreditation is identifying the time and resources to dedicate to the process.

Assessing community-level impacts of and responses to stay at home orders: The King County COVID-19 community study.

BACKGROUND: At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) of unprecedented scope and duration were implemented to limit community spread of COVID-19. There remains limited evidence about how these measures impacted the lived experience of affected communities. This study captured the early impacts and coping strategies implemented in King County, Washington, one of the first U.S. communities impacted by COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey of 793 English- and Spanish-speaking adult King County residents from March 18, 2020 -May 30, 2020, using voluntary response sampling. The survey included close- and open-ended questions on participant demographics, wellbeing, protective actions, and COVID-19-related concerns, including a freeform narrative response to describe the pandemic's individual-, family- and community-level impacts and associated coping strategies. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze close-ended questions, and qualitative content analysis methods were used to analyze free-form narrative responses. RESULTS: The median age of participants was 45 years old, and 74% were female, 82% were White, and 6% were Hispanic/Latinx; 474 (60%) provided a qualitative narrative. Quantitative findings demonstrated that higher percentages of participants engaged in most types of COVID-19 protective behaviors after the stay-at-home order was implemented and schools and community spaces were closed, relative to before, and that participants tended to report greater concern about the pandemic's physical health or healthcare access impacts than the financial or social impacts. Qualitative data analysis described employment or financial impacts (56%) and vitality coping strategies (65%), intended to support health or positive functioning. CONCLUSIONS: This study documented early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the NPIs implemented in response, as well as strategies employed to cope with those impacts, which can inform early-stage policy formation and intervention strategies to mitigate the negative impacts. Future research should explore the endurance and evolution of the early impacts and coping strategies throughout the multiyear pandemic.

Are We Ready to Build Back "Healthier?" An Exploratory Analysis of U.S. State-Level Disaster Recovery Plans.

As communities recover from disasters, it is crucial to understand the extent to which states are prepared to support the recovery of health systems and services. This need has been emphasized by the United States' experience with COVID-19. This study sought to assess public health activities in state disaster recovery implementation plans. In this exploratory, descriptive study, state-wide disaster recovery implementation plans were collected from emergency management agency websites and verified (n = 33). We reviewed and coded the recovery plans to identify health-related activities. While 70% and 64% of reviewed plans included activities to address short-term healthcare and behavioral health needs, respectively, one-third or less of the plans included activities to address long-term healthcare and behavioral health needs. Further, plans have limited descriptions of health-related data collection, analysis, or data-driven processes. Additional evidence-informed public health requirements and activities are needed in disaster recovery implementation plans. State disaster recovery plans would benefit from additional description of public health roles, responsibilities, and activities, as well as additional plans for collecting and analyzing public health data to drive recovery decision making and activities. Plans should include approaches for ongoing evaluation of recovery activities.

Building Back Better: Local Health Department Engagement and Integration of Health Promotion into Hurricane Harvey Recovery Planning and Implementation.

Disaster recovery provides an opportunity to build healthier and more resilient communities. However, opportunities and challenges encountered by local health departments (LHDs) when integrating health considerations into recovery have yet to be explored. Following Hurricane Harvey, 17 local health and emergency management officials from 10 agencies in impacted Texas, USA jurisdictions were interviewed to describe the types and level of LHD engagement in disaster recovery planning and implementation and the extent to which communities leveraged recovery to build healthier, more resilient communities. Interviews were conducted between December 2017 and January 2018 and focused on if and how their communities were incorporating public health considerations into the visioning, planning, implementation, and assessment phases of disaster recovery. Using a combined inductive and deductive approach, we thematically analyzed interview notes and/or transcripts. LHDs reported varied levels of engagement and participation in activities to support their community's recovery. However, we found that LHDs rarely articulated or informed decision makers about the health impacts of recovery activities undertaken by other sectors. LHDs would benefit from additional resources, support, and technical assistance designed to facilitate working across sectors and building resilience during recovery.

Identifying and Prioritizing Information Needs and Research Priorities of Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes findings from an assessment conducted to identify perceived knowledge gaps, information needs, and research priorities among state, territorial, and local public health preparedness directors and coordinators related to public health emergency preparedness and response (PHPR). The goal of the study was to gather information that would be useful for ensuring that future funding for research and evaluation targets areas most critical for advancing public health practice. METHODS: We implemented a mixed-methods approach to identify and prioritize PHPR research questions. A web survey was sent to all state, city, and territorial health agencies funded through the Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement program and a sample of local health departments (LHDs). Three focus groups of state and local practitioners and subject matter experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were subsequently conducted, followed by 3 meetings of an expert panel of PHPR practitioners and CDC experts to prioritize and refine the research questions. RESULTS: We identified a final list of 44 research questions that were deemed by study participants as priority topics where future research can inform PHPR programs and practice. We identified differences in perceived research priorities between PHEP awardees and LHD survey respondents; the number of research questions rated as important was greater among LHDs than among PHEP awardees (75%, n=33, compared to 24%, n=15). CONCLUSIONS: The research questions identified provide insight into public health practitioners' perceived knowledge gaps and the types of information that would be most useful for informing and advancing PHPR practice. The study also points to a higher level of information need among LHDs than among PHEP awardees. These findings are important for CDC and the PHPR research community to ensure that future research studies are responsive to practitioners' needs and provide the information required to enhance their capacity to meet the needs of the communities and jurisdictions they serve. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:552-561).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of catch-up hepatitis A vaccination among unvaccinated/partially-vaccinated children.

BACKGROUND: Since 2006, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended hepatitis A (HepA) vaccination routinely for children aged 12-23months to prevent hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection. However, a substantial proportion of US children are unvaccinated and susceptible to infection. We present results of economic modeling to assess whether a one-time catch-up HepA vaccination recommendation would be cost-effective. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of HAV infection that followed a single cohort from birth through death (birth to age 95years). The model compared the health and economic outcomes from catch-up vaccination interventions for children at target ages from two through 17years vs. outcomes resulting from maintaining the current recommendation of routine vaccination at age one year with no catch-up intervention. RESULTS: Over the lifetime of the cohort, catch-up vaccination would reduce the total number of infections relative to the baseline by 741 while increasing doses of vaccine by 556,989. Catch-up vaccination would increase net costs by $10.2million, or $2.38 per person. The incremental cost of HepA vaccine catch-up intervention at age 10years, the midpoint of the ages modeled, was $452,239 per QALY gained. Across age-cohorts, the cost-effectiveness of catch-up vaccination is most favorable at age 12years, resulting in an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of $189,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Given the low baseline of HAV disease incidence achieved by current vaccination recommendations, our economic model suggests that a catch-up vaccination recommendation would be less cost-effective than many other vaccine interventions, and that HepA catch-up vaccination would become cost effective at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY only when incidence of HAV rises about 5.0 cases per 100,000 population.