CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS IN ARIZONA AND THEIR ASSOCIATION TO HEALTH OUTCOMES

Local Health Departments (LHD) that aim to address the public health needs of growing populations require qualified professionals with management competencies. In Arizona, the majority of public health services are delivered by the county health departments, which are charged with assisting community members and monitoring and improving community health. These activities are funded with federal, state and local money, which varies across counties. This study provides a comprehensive understanding of the local public health system in Arizona, the distribution of public health services across counties and examines the association between health outcomes data and funding patterns for each county. National Association of City and County Health Officials (NACCHO) data from their 2008 survey was used to examine the activities performed at the local level. The majority of the activities in which the LHDs focus fall within the assurance function of public health. Interviews with all Arizona county health department directors (N=15) were conducted. Discussion focused on LHD activities, county and state political/policy climate and partnerships that contribute to LHDs activities. Responses varied significantly across the state due to differences in demographic and financial characteristics of the counties. Many political, socioeconomic and environmental barriers to provision of services were identified as well as the need for developing a stronger public health infrastructure.Finally, associations between several health outcomes and funding, workforce and demographic data of the 15 local health departments in Arizona were examined by conducting correlation analysis and linear regressions. This study found strong positive associations between LHD revenues, LHD expenditures, population size and number of LHD employees and HIV/AIDS incidence, low birth weight births and infant mortality rate. Positive associations were also found between revenues and number of women who received prenatal care and HIV/AIDS mortality rate as well as between number of LHD employees and diabetes mortality rate. This study represents a small step in better understanding the local public health system in Arizona, the distribution of public health services across counties and the political, financial and policy constraints faced by county health department directors

Literature review to characterize the empirical basis for response scale selection in pediatric populations

Abstract Background Despite the importance of response option selection for patient-reported outcome measures, there seems to be little empirical evidence for the selected scale type. This article provides an overview of the published research on response scale types and empirical support within pediatric populations. Methods A comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify response scale option types appropriate for use in pediatric populations and to review and summarize the available empirical evidence for each scale type. Results Eleven review/consensus guideline/expert opinion articles and 20 empirical articles that provided guidance or evidence regarding pediatric response scale selection were identified. There was general consensus that 5-point verbal rating scales, including Likert scales, were appropriate for children aged 7 or 8 and older, while graphical or faces scales are often used in pediatric studies with children of younger ages. Conclusion In general, the verbal rating scale, numeric rating scale, visual analogue scale, and graphical scales have each demonstrated to be reliable and valid response option formats in specific contexts among pediatric populations; however, their appropriateness is dependent upon sample age. When selecting response scales, it is important to consider target population and context of use during the development of patient-reported outcome measures, especially with respect to tense, recall period, attribution, number of options, etc. In addition to age, cognitive development is an important aspect to consider for optimizing pediatric self-reported measures. More research is needed to determine clinically relevant changes and differences within pediatric research, which includes different response scale options

Literature review to assemble the evidence for response scales used in patient-reported outcome measures

Abstract Background In the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, little documentation is provided on the justification of response scale selection. The selection of response scales is often based on the developers’ preferences or therapeutic area conventions. The purpose of this literature review was to assemble evidence on the selection of response scale types, in PRO instruments. The literature search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases. Secondary search was conducted on supplementary sources including reference lists of key articles, websites for major PRO-related working groups and consortia, and conference abstracts. Evidence on the selection of verbal rating scale (VRS), numeric rating scale (NRS), and visual analogue scale (VAS) was collated based on pre-determined categories pertinent to the development of PRO instruments: reliability, validity, and responsiveness of PRO instruments, select therapeutic areas, and optimal number of response scale options. Results A total of 6713 abstracts were reviewed; 186 full-text references included. There was a lack of consensus in the literature on the justification for response scale type based on the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a PRO instrument. The type of response scale varied within the following therapeutic areas: asthma, cognition, depression, fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis, and oncology. The optimal number of response options depends on the construct, but quantitative evidence suggests that a 5-point or 6-point VRS was more informative and discriminative than fewer response options. Conclusions The VRS, NRS, and VAS are acceptable response scale types in the development of PRO instruments. The empirical evidence on selection of response scales was inconsistent and, therefore, more empirical evidence needs to be generated. In the development of PRO instruments, it is important to consider the measurement properties and therapeutic area and provide justification for the selection of response scale type