The Association Between Evidence-Based Decision Making and Accreditation of State Health Departments

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between evidence-based decision making, including implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), with accreditation of state health departments through the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB).

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional, electronic survey of state health department practitioners. We utilized a survey instrument focused on evidence-based public health, de-implementation, and sustainability of public health programs. Survey questions were organized into 6 domains: (1) demographic information; (2) individual-level skills; (3) decision making on programs ending; (4) decision making on programs continuing; (5) organization/agency capacity; and (6) external influences.

PARTICIPANTS

The targeted practitioners were randomly selected from the 3000-person membership of National Association of Chronic Disease Directors and program manager lists from key Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-supported programs in cancer and cancer risk factors. The final target audience for the survey totaled 1329 practitioners, representing all 50 states.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The main outcome measures included the strength of association between a state's PHAB accreditation status and variables related to evidence-based public health and use of EBIs that fell within the individual participant skills, organization/agency capacity, and external influences domains.

RESULTS

We received 643 valid responses (response rate = 48.4%), representing all 50 states, with 35 states being PHAB accredited. There was a statistically significant association between PHAB accreditation and state health department use of quality improvement processes (P = .002), leadership plans to implement EBIs (P = .009), and leadership reactions to EBI implementation issues (P = .004). Respondents from PHAB-accredited states were significantly more likely than participants from nonaccredited states to report greater engagement with legislators and governors regarding EBIs and 14% less likely to report the inappropriate termination of programs in their work unit (P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of accreditation relates to both internally focused functions and externally focused activities, especially regarding policy-related impact.

Patterns and correlates of mis-implementation in state chronic disease public health practice in the United States

BACKGROUND

Much of the disease burden in the United States is preventable through application of existing knowledge. State-level public health practitioners are in ideal positions to affect programs and policies related to chronic disease, but the extent to which mis-implementation occurring with these programs is largely unknown. Mis-implementation refers to ending effective programs and policies prematurely or continuing ineffective ones.

METHODS

A 2018 comprehensive survey assessing the extent of mis-implementation and multi-level influences on mis-implementation was reported by state health departments (SHDs). Questions were developed from previous literature. Surveys were emailed to randomly selected SHD employees across the Unites States. Spearman's correlation and multinomial logistic regression were used to assess factors in mis-implementation.

RESULTS

Half (50.7%) of respondents were chronic disease program managers or unit directors. Forty nine percent reported that programs their SHD oversees sometimes, often or always continued ineffective programs. Over 50% also reported that their SHD sometimes or often ended effective programs. The data suggest the strongest correlates and predictors of mis-implementation were at the organizational level. For example, the number of organizational layers impeded decision-making was significant for both continuing ineffective programs (OR=4.70; 95% CI=2.20, 10.04) and ending effective programs (OR=3.23; 95% CI=1.61, 7.40).

CONCLUSION

The data suggest that changing certain agency practices may help in minimizing the occurrence of mis-implementation. Further research should focus on adding context to these issues and helping agencies engage in appropriate decision-making. Greater attention to mis-implementation should lead to greater use of effective interventions and more efficient expenditure of resources, ultimately to improve health outcomes.

Dissemination and Implementation Science Training Needs: Insights From Practitioners and Researchers

INTRODUCTION

Dissemination and implementation research training has great potential to improve the impact and reach of health-related research; however, research training needs from the end user perspective are unknown. This paper identifies and prioritizes dissemination and implementation research training needs.

METHODS

A diverse sample of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers was invited to participate in Concept Mapping in 2014-2015. Phase 1 (Brainstorming) gathered participants' responses to the prompt: To improve the impact of research evidence in practice and policy settings, a skill in which researchers need more training is… The resulting statement list was edited and included subsequent phases. Phase 2 (Sorting) asked participants to sort each statement into conceptual piles. In Phase 3 (Rating), participants rated the difficulty and importance of incorporating each statement into a training curriculum. A multidisciplinary team synthesized and interpreted the results in 2015-2016.

RESULTS

During Brainstorming, 60 researchers and 60 practitioners/policymakers contributed 274 unique statements. Twenty-nine researchers and 16 practitioners completed sorting and rating. Nine concept clusters were identified: Communicating Research Findings, Improve Practice Partnerships, Make Research More Relevant, Strengthen Communication Skills, Develop Research Methods and Measures, Consider and Enhance Fit, Build Capacity for Research, and Understand Multilevel Context. Though researchers and practitioners had high agreement about importance (r =0.93) and difficulty (r =0.80), ratings differed for several clusters (e.g., Build Capacity for Research).

CONCLUSIONS

Including researcher and practitioner perspectives in competency development for dissemination and implementation research identifies skills and capacities needed to conduct and communicate contextualized, meaningful, and relevant research.