Supporting Rural Community Emergency Planning, Response, and Recovery.

When rural communities are faced with an emergency or disaster, their capacity to support the response is often exceeded. The NORC Walsh Center for Rural Health Analysis and the Rural Health Information Hub (RHIhub) developed the Rural Emergency Preparedness and Response Toolkit (the Toolkit) to support rural communities with disaster planning, response, and recovery. The Toolkit provides information drawn from literature, subject matter experts, and case studies and shares key considerations for emergency preparedness. This article highlights the development of and key insights from the Toolkit, including preparedness frameworks, population considerations, plan and assessment examples, and funding support. Investing in emergency preparedness is vital for rural communities and this Toolkit offers strategies and best practices for each phase of a disaster.

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.

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.

Older Adult Willingness to Use Fully Autonomous Vehicle (FAV) Ride Sharing.

In the United States, older adults (age 65 and older) rely on private automobiles for transportation. For those who stop driving, access to alternative modes of transportation is important for health, wellbeing, mobility, and independence. This paper explores older adult willingness to use fully autonomous vehicle (FAV) ride sharing and the features or services of FAV ride sharing that would make them willing to take a ride. These data were gathered as part of a larger qualitative research study designed to explore the factors affecting older adult use of ride share services. For the larger study, we conducted 68 telephone interviews with older adults, and 10 in-person focus groups with 56 older adults, including individuals who both used and never used ride share services. We used a convenience sample recruited by study partners, including ride share and transportation services and a recruitment firm. The predominant thematic findings of the qualitative analysis included a desire for a proven safety record in terms of performance and technology, followed by dependability and accuracy of FAV ride sharing. Older adults' concerns about FAV ride sharing included safety concerns and preferences for social interaction with drivers. Ride share services that use FAVs in the future may need to tailor transportation offerings for older adults to increase their willingness to use FAVS to support their mobility and social needs.

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).