State practitioner insights into local public health challenges and opportunities in obesity prevention: a qualitative study.

IntroductionThe extent of obesity prevention activities conducted by local health departments (LHDs) varies widely. The purpose of this qualitative study was to characterize how state obesity prevention program directors perceived the role of LHDs in obesity prevention and factors that impact LHDs' success in obesity prevention.MethodsFrom June 2011 through August 2011, we conducted 28 semistructured interviews with directors of federally funded obesity prevention programs at 22 state and regional health departments. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed to identify recurring themes and key quotations.ResultsMain themes focused on the roles of LHDs in local policy and environmental change and on the barriers and facilitators to LHD success. The role LHDs play in obesity prevention varied across states but generally reflected governance structure (decentralized vs centralized). Barriers to local prevention efforts included competing priorities, lack of local capacity, siloed public health structures, and a lack of local engagement in policy and environmental change. Structures and processes that facilitated prevention were having state support (eg, resources, technical assistance), dedicated staff, strong communication networks, and a robust community health assessment and planning process.ConclusionsThese findings provide insight into successful strategies state and local practitioners are using to implement innovative (and evidence-informed) community-based interventions. The change in the nature of obesity prevention requires a rethinking of the state-local relationship, especially in centralized states

Combined effect of lead exposure and allostatic load on cardiovascular disease mortality-a preliminary study

This study explores the combined effect of lead (Pb) exposure and an index of chronic physiological stress on cardiovascular disease mortality using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2008 linked to 1999-2014 National Death Index data. Chronic physiological stress was measured using the allostatic load (AL) index, which was formed by analyzing markers from the cardiovascular, inflammatory, and metabolic systems, with Pb levels, assessed using blood lead levels (BLL). The dataset was analyzed with statistical techniques to explore (a) the relationship between Pb exposure and AL, and (b) the combined role of Pb and AL on cardiovascular disease mortality. Results indicated that AL was more elevated in those with BLLs above the 50th percentile in the US population and that those with elevated AL were more likely to have high BLL. Finally, the interaction of AL and BLL significantly increased the likelihood of cardiovascular disease mortality. These findings highlight the need for considering the totality of exposures experienced by populations to build holistic programs to prevent Pb exposure and reduce stressors to promote optimal health outcomes and reduce cardiovascular mortality risk

The role of researchers in disseminating evidence to public health practice settings: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based public health interventions, which research has demonstrated offer the most promise for improving the population’s health, are not always utilized in practice settings. The extent to which dissemination from researchers to public health practice settings occurs is not widely understood. This study examines the extent to which public health researchers in the United States are disseminating their research findings to local and state public health departments. METHODS: In a 2012, nationwide study, an online questionnaire was administered to 266 researchers from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and universities to determine dissemination practices. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between dissemination to state and/or local health departments and respondent characteristics, facilitators, and barriers to dissemination. RESULTS: Slightly over half of the respondents (58%) disseminated their findings to local and/or state health departments. After adjusting for other respondent characteristics, respondents were more likely to disseminate their findings to health departments if they worked for a university Prevention Research Center or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or received their degree more than 20 years ago. Those who had ever worked in a practice or policy setting, those who thought dissemination was important to their own research and/or to the work of their unit/department, and those who had expectations set by their employers and/or funding agencies were more likely to disseminate after adjusting for work place, graduate degree and/or fellowship in public health, and the year the highest academic degree was received. CONCLUSIONS: There is still room for improvement in strengthening dissemination ties between researchers and public health practice settings, and decreasing the barriers researchers face during the dissemination process. Researchers could better utilize national programs or workshops, knowledge brokers, or opportunities provided through academic institutions to become more proficient in dissemination practices

Developing the next generation of dissemination and implementation researchers: Insights from initial trainees

BACKGROUND: Dissemination and implementation (D&I) research is a relatively young discipline, underscoring the importance of training and career development in building and sustaining the field. As such, D&I research faces several challenges in designing formal training programs and guidance for career development. A cohort of early-stage investigators (ESI) recently involved in an implementation research training program provided a resource for formative data in identifying needs and solutions around career development. RESULTS: Responses outlined fellows’ perspectives on the perceived usefulness and importance of, as well as barriers to, developing practice linkages, acquiring additional methods training, academic advancement, and identifying institutional supports. Mentorship was a cross-cutting issue and was further discussed in terms of ways it could foster career advancement in the context of D&I research. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing an emerging field while simultaneously developing an academic career offers a unique challenge to ESIs in D&I research. This article summarizes findings from the formative data that outlines some directions for ESIs and provides linkages to the literature and other resources on key points

Measurement properties of a novel survey to assess stages of organizational readiness for evidence-based interventions in community chronic disease prevention settings

BACKGROUND: There is a great deal of variation in the existing capacity of primary prevention programs and policies addressing chronic disease to deliver evidence-based interventions (EBIs). In order to develop and evaluate implementation strategies that are tailored to the appropriate level of capacity, there is a need for an easy-to-administer tool to stage organizational readiness for EBIs. METHODS: Based on theoretical frameworks, including Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations, we developed a survey instrument to measure four domains representing stages of readiness for EBI: awareness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. A separate scale representing organizational climate as a potential mediator of readiness for EBIs was also included in the survey. Twenty-three questions comprised the four domains, with four to nine items each, using a seven-point response scale. Representatives from obesity, asthma, diabetes, and tobacco prevention programs serving diverse populations in the United States were surveyed (N = 243); test-retest reliability was assessed with 92 respondents. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test and refine readiness scales. Test-retest reliability of the readiness scales, as measured by intraclass correlation, ranged from 0.47–0.71. CFA found good fit for the five-item adoption and implementation scales and resulted in revisions of the awareness and maintenance scales. The awareness scale was split into two two-item scales, representing community and agency awareness. The maintenance scale was split into five- and four-item scales, representing infrastructural maintenance and evaluation maintenance, respectively. Internal reliability of scales (Cronbach’s α) ranged from 0.66–0.78. The model for the final revised scales approached good fit, with most factor loadings >0.6 and all >0.4. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of adequate measurement tools hinders progress in dissemination and implementation research. These preliminary results help fill this gap by describing the reliability and measurement properties of a theory-based tool; the short, user-friendly instrument may be useful to researchers and practitioners seeking to assess organizational readiness for EBIs across a variety of chronic disease prevention programs and settings

Enhancing evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease control among local health departments: A multi-phase dissemination study with a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial component

Examples of Intervention Dissemination Strategies and Description. (DOCX 22 kb

Developing a Tool to Assess Administrative Evidence-Based Practices in Local Health Departments

There is need for assessing the practices undertaken by local health departments in order to improve the implementation of evidence-based actions. This paper describes the development and testing of a survey instrument for assessing Administrative Evidence-Based Practices (A-EBPs) in Local Health Departments. A-EBPs identified through a review of the literature were used to develop a survey composed of nine sections and tested in a sample of local health department practitioners. The resulting tool showed adequate test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Practitioners and researchers may apply this tool in practice-based and evaluation research

Promoting state health department evidence-based cancer and chronic disease prevention: A multi-phase dissemination study with a cluster randomized trial component

BACKGROUND: Cancer and other chronic diseases reduce quality and length of life and productivity, and represent a significant financial burden to society. Evidence-based public health approaches to prevent cancer and other chronic diseases have been identified in recent decades and have the potential for high impact. Yet, barriers to implement prevention approaches persist as a result of multiple factors including lack of organizational support, limited resources, competing emerging priorities and crises, and limited skill among the public health workforce. The purpose of this study is to learn how best to promote the adoption of evidence based public health practice related to chronic disease prevention. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper describes the methods for a multi-phase dissemination study with a cluster randomized trial component that will evaluate the dissemination of public health knowledge about evidence-based prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases. Phase one involves development of measures of practitioner views on and organizational supports for evidence-based public health and data collection using a national online survey involving state health department chronic disease practitioners. In phase two, a cluster randomized trial design will be conducted to test receptivity and usefulness of dissemination strategies directed toward state health department chronic disease practitioners to enhance capacity and organizational support for evidence-based chronic disease prevention. Twelve state health department chronic disease units will be randomly selected and assigned to intervention or control. State health department staff and the university-based study team will jointly identify, refine, and select dissemination strategies within intervention units. Intervention (dissemination) strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, and remote technical assistance. Evaluation methods include pre-post surveys, structured qualitative phone interviews, and abstraction of state-level chronic disease prevention program plans and progress reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01978054