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.

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).

Local Health Departments as Clinical Safety Net in Rural Communities.

INTRODUCTION: The appropriate role of local health departments (LHDs) as a clinical service provider remains a salient issue. This study examines differences in clinical service provision among rural/urban LHDs for early periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment (EPSDT) and prenatal care services. METHODS: Data collected from the 2013 National Association of County and City Health Officials Profile of Local Health Departments Survey was used to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of rural/urban differences in clinical service provision by LHDs. Profile data were linked with the 2013 Area Health Resource File to derive other county-level measures. Data analysis was conducted in 2015. RESULTS: Approximately 35% of LHDs in the analysis provided EPSDT services directly and 26% provided prenatal care. LHDs reporting no others providing these services in the community were four times more likely to report providing EPSDT services directly and six times more likely to provide prenatal care services directly. Rural LHDs were more likely to provide EPSDT (OR=1.46, 95% CI=1.07, 2.00) and prenatal care (OR=2.43, 95% CI=1.70, 3.47) services than urban LHDs. The presence of a Federally Qualified Health Center in the county was associated with reduced clinical service provision by LHDs for EPSDT and prenatal care. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that many LHDs in rural communities remain a clinical service provider and a critical component of the healthcare safety net. The unique position of rural LHDs should be considered in national policy discussions around the organization and delivery of public health services, particularly as they relate to clinical services.