Factors Affecting Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Health Departments (original) (raw)
Related papers
Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Health Departments
Frontiers in Public Health Services and Systems Research, 2012
Evidence-based decision making (EBDM) represents an important strategy to increase efficacy and efficiency of public health programs and practice. There is insufficient information on the application of EBDM among local health departments (LHDs). This qualitative study examined use of EBDM in New York State (NYS) LHDs and factors facilitating and impeding its adoption through interviews and focus groups with 47 LHD commissioners, health directors, and other upper-level staff. Findings suggest variability in application of EBDM in NYS LHDs. A number of internal factors (e.g., staff capacity, organizational culture) and external factors (e.g., policy environment, appropriate and replicable evidence-based models) contribute to its uneven use, even within a single LHD. Keywords phssr, public health services and systems research, Evidence-based decision making, local health departments, facilitators, barriers Cover
BMC Health Services Research, 2015
Background: Administrative evidence based practices (A-EBPs) are agency level structures and activities positively associated with performance measures (e.g., achieving core public health functions, carrying out evidence-based interventions). The objectives of this study were to examine the contextual conditions and explore differences in local health department (LHD) characteristics that influence the implementation of A-EBPs. Methods: Qualitative case studies were conducted based on data from 35 practitioners in six LHDs across the United States. The sample was chosen using an A-EBP score from our 2012 national survey and was linked to secondary data from the National Public Health Performance Standards Program. Three LHDs that scored high and three LHDs that scored low on both measures were selected as case study sites. The 37-question interview guide explored LHD use of an evidence based decision making process, including A-EBPs and evidence-based programs and policies. Each interview took 30-60 min. Standard qualitative methodology was used for data coding and analysis using NVivo software. Results: As might be expected, high-capacity LHDs were more likely to have strong leadership, partnerships, financial flexibility, workforce development activities, and an organizational culture supportive of evidence based decision making and implementation of A-EBPs. They were also more likely to describe having strong or important relationships with universities and other educational resources, increasing their access to resources and allowing them to more easily share knowledge and expertise. Conclusions: Differences between high-and low-capacity LHDs in A-EBP domains highlight the importance of investments in these areas and the potential those investments have to contribute to overall efficiency and performance. Further research may identify avenues to enhance resources in these domains to create an organizational culture supportive of A-EBPs.
A survey tool for measuring evidence-based decision making capacity in public health agencies
BMC Health Services Research, 2012
Background: While increasing attention is placed on using evidence-based decision making (EBDM) to improve public health, there is little research assessing the current EBDM capacity of the public health workforce. Public health agencies serve a wide range of populations with varying levels of resources. Our survey tool allows an individual agency to collect data that reflects its unique workforce. Methods: Health department leaders and academic researchers collaboratively developed and conducted crosssectional surveys in Kansas and Mississippi (USA) to assess EBDM capacity. Surveys were delivered to state-and local-level practitioners and community partners working in chronic disease control and prevention. The core component of the surveys was adopted from a previously tested instrument and measured gaps (importance versus availability) in competencies for EBDM in chronic disease. Other survey questions addressed expectations and incentives for using EBDM, self-efficacy in three EBDM skills, and estimates of EBDM within the agency. Results: In both states, participants identified communication with policymakers, use of economic evaluation, and translation of research to practice as top competency gaps. Self-efficacy in developing evidence-based chronic disease control programs was lower than in finding or using data. Public health practitioners estimated that approximately two-thirds of programs in their agency were evidence-based. Mississippi participants indicated that health department leaders' expectations for the use of EBDM was approximately twice that of co-workers' expectations and that the use of EBDM could be increased with training and leadership prioritization. Conclusions: The assessment of EBDM capacity in Kansas and Mississippi built upon previous nationwide findings to identify top gaps in core competencies for EBDM in chronic disease and to estimate a percentage of programs in U.S. health departments that are evidence-based. The survey can serve as a valuable tool for other health departments and non-governmental organizations to assess EBDM capacity within their own workforce and to assist in the identification of approaches that will enhance the uptake of EBDM processes in public health programming and policymaking. Localized survey findings can provide direction for focusing workforce training programs and can indicate the types of incentives and policies that could affect the culture of EBDM in the workplace.
BMC Health Services Research, 2014
Background: Preparing the public health workforce to practice evidence-based decision making (EBDM) is necessary to effectively impact health outcomes. Few studies report on training needs in EBDM at the national level in the United States. We report competency gaps to practice EBDM based on four U.S. national surveys we conducted with the state and local public health workforce between 2008 and 2013. Methods: We compared self-reported data from four U.S. national online surveys on EBDM conducted between 2008 and 2013. Participants rated the importance of each EBDM competency then rated how available the competency is to them when needed on a Likert scale. We calculated a gap score by subtracting availability scores from importance scores. We compared mean gaps across surveys and utilized independent samples t tests and Cohen's d values to compare state level gaps. In addition, participants in the 2013 state health department survey selected and ranked three items that "would most encourage you to utilize EBDM in your work" and items that "would be most useful to you in applying EBDM in your work". We calculated the percentage of participants who ranked each item among their top three. Results: The largest competency gaps were consistent across all four surveys: economic evaluation, communicating research to policymakers, evaluation designs, and adapting interventions. Participants from the 2013 state level survey reported significantly larger mean importance and availability scores (p <0.001, d =1.00, and p <0.001, d = .78 respectively) and smaller mean gaps (p <0.01, d = .19) compared to the 2008 survey. Participants most often selected "leaders prioritizing EBDM" (67.9%) among top ways to encourage EBDM use. "EBDM training for specific areas" was most commonly ranked as important in applying EBDM (64.3%). Conclusion: Perceived importance and availability of EBDM competencies may be increasing as supports for EBDM continue to grow through trends in funding, training, and resources. However, more capacity building is needed overall, with specific attention to the largest competency gaps. More work with public health departments to both situate trainings to boost competency in these areas and continued improvements for organizational practices (leadership prioritization) are possible next steps to sustain EBDM efforts.
American journal of public health, 2015
We examined variation in the use of evidence-based decision-making (EBDM) practices across local health departments (LHDs) in the United States and the extent to which this variation was predicted by resources, personnel, and governance. We analyzed data from the National Association of County and City Health Officials Profile of Local Health Departments, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials State Health Departments Profile, and the US Census using 2-level multilevel regression models. We found more workforce predictors than resource predictors. Thus, although resources are related to LHDs' use of EBDM practices, the way resources are used (e.g., the types and qualifications of personnel hired) may be more important. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print February 17, 2015: e1-e9. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302306).
2013
Objectives. There are sparse data showing the extent to which the process of evidence-based public health is occurring among local health departments (LHDs). The study objective was to describe the patterns and predictors of administrative evidence-based practices (structures and activities that are associated with performance) in a representative sample of LHDs. Methods. A cross-sectional study of 517 LHD directors was conducted. The questions on administrative evidence-based practices included 19 items based on a recent literature review (five domains: workforce development, leadership, organizational climate/culture, relationships/partnerships, financial processes). Results. There was a wide range in attainment of administrative evidence-based practices; mean values were lowest for organizational climate/culture (49.9%) and highest for relationships/partnerships (77.1%). Variables associated with attaining the highest tertile of administrative evidence-based practices included ha...
Frontiers in Public Health
BackgroundLocal health departments (LHDs) in the United States are charged with preventing disease and promoting health in their respective communities. Understanding and addressing what supports LHD's need to foster a climate and culture supportive of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) processes can enhance delivery of effective practices and services.MethodsWe employed a stepped-wedge trial design to test staggered delivery of implementation supports in 12 LHDs (Missouri, USA) to expand capacity for EBDM processes. The intervention was an in-person training in EBDM and continued support by the research team over 24 months (March 2018–February 2020). We used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate: (1) individuals' EBDM skills, (2) organizational supports for EBDM, and (3) administered evidence-based interventions. LHD staff completed a quantitative survey at 4 time points measuring their EBDM skills, organizational supports, and evidence-based interventions. We selected 4 ...
What influences the use of administrative evidence-based practices in local health departments?
American journal of public health, 2015
Evidence based public health (EBPH) in local health departments (LHDs) is a process that involves translating the best available scientific evidence into practice. However, EBPH and implementation of evidence based programs and policies in LHDs are not widespread. This report outlines the patterns and predictors of the use of administrative evidence based practices (A-EBPs) in a national sample of LHD directors. LHDs can improve performance, prepare for accreditation and ultimately improve community health by utilizing an administrative evidence based process.
Implementation Science Communications, 2020
Background Public health agencies are responsible for implementing effective, evidence-based public health programs and policies to reduce the burden of chronic diseases. Evidence-based public health can be facilitated by modifiable administrative evidence-based practices (A-EBPs) (e.g., workforce development, organizational climate), yet little is known about how practitioners view A-EBPs. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative study was to understand state health department practitioners’ perceptions about how A-EBPs are implemented and what facilitators and barriers exist to using A-EBPs. Methods Chronic disease prevention and health promotion program staff who were members of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors were recruited to participate in telephone interviews using a snowball sampling technique. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analyzed using a common codebook and the a priori method in NVivo. Results Twenty seven interviews were c...