Enhancing the Capacity of Local Health Departments to Address Birth Equity: The Institute for Equity in Birth Outcomes

Abstract Introduction Significant and persistent racial and ethnic disparities exist related to infant mortality and other birth outcomes. Few models exist that aim to prepare organizations to implement essential features, such as community engagement or intervening on social determinants of health. Methods Between 2013 and 2015, teams from seven local health departments participated in the Institute for Equity in Birth Outcomes (EI) with the goals of building capacity and implementing changes to address equity in birth outcomes. Four of the teams enrolled in the first cohort (2013–2015), and three enrolled in cohort two (2014–2015). To examine the EI effort and its impact on capacity and implementation of changes, two types of assessments were completed. Capacities of the teams in specific key areas were assessed using “Best Change Process” instruments at the completion of participation in the EI. Teams also documented on an ongoing basis implementation of interventions. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson Correlation tests. Results Best Change Process capacity scores were higher in the first cohort than in the second and were highly correlated with implementation of changes (Pearson’s Correlation = 0.838, p = 0.037). Collectively, the teams implemented about 32 new programs, policies, practices, and systems changes aimed at addressing equity in birth outcomes. Most interventions were based on scientific recommendations and local epidemiologic data. Discussion The results of the study suggest the EI is a promising approach that may result in strong capacity and ability to implement interventions aimed at addressing equity in birth outcomes.

Download Full-text

Demonstration Projects for State and Local Health Departments: HIV Rapid Testing to Improve Outcomes for Partner Counseling, Testing, and Referral Services (PCTRS)

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e412192005-001 ◽

2004 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

Local Health ◽

Health Departments ◽

Rapid Testing ◽

Local Health Departments ◽

Hiv Rapid Testing ◽

State And Local

Download Full-text

Patterns of Cross-Sector Collaboration in Local Health Departments: A Cluster Analysis

Health Promotion Practice ◽

10.1177/1524839920972982 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 152483992097298

Author(s):

Alexis K. Grant

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Cluster Analysis ◽

Determinants Of Health ◽

Local Health ◽

Health Departments ◽

Local Health Departments ◽

Structural Determinants ◽

Cluster Assignment ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Top Executive

Local health departments (LHDs) are positioned to act as the community health strategist for their catchment area, which requires cross-sector collaboration. However, little research exists to understand how much and what types of cross-sector collaboration occur and its impact on LHD practice. Data from 490 LHDs who participated in the 2016 National Profile of Local Health Departments survey were analyzed to identify patterns of cross-sector collaboration among LHDs. In the survey, LHDs reported the presence of collaborative activities for each of 22 categories of organizations. Factor analysis was used to identify patterns in the types of organizations with which LHDs collaborate. Then, cluster analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the types of cross-sector collaboration, and cross-sectional analyses examined which LHD characteristics were associated with cluster assignment. LHDs collaborated most with traditional health care–oriented organizations, but less often with organizations focused on upstream determinants of health such as housing. Three distinct clusters represented collaboration patterns in LHDs: coordinators, networkers, and low-collaborators. LHDs who were low-collaborators were more likely to serve smaller populations, be unaccredited, have a smaller workforce, have a White top executive, and have a top executive without a graduate degree. These findings imply that public health practitioners should prioritize building bridges to a variety of organizations and engage in collaboration beyond information sharing. Furthermore, LHDs should prioritize accreditation and workforce development activities for supporting cross-sector collaboration. With these investments, the public health system can better address the social and structural determinants of health and promote health equity.

Download Full-text

Actionable lessons for the US COVID vaccine program

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research ◽

10.1186/s13584-021-00452-2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Gary L. Freed

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Local Health ◽

National Strategy ◽

Individual State ◽

Health Departments ◽

Local Health Departments ◽

Public Health Infrastructure ◽

Health Infrastructure ◽

The Us ◽

Vaccine Distribution

AbstractWhen attempting to provide lessons for other countries from the successful Israeli COVID-19 vaccine experience, it is important to distinguish between the modifiable and non-modifiable components identified in the article by Rosen, et al. Two specific modifiable components included in the Israeli program from which the US can learn are (a) a national (not individual state-based) strategy for vaccine distribution and administration and (b) a functioning public health infrastructure. As a federal government, the US maintains an often complex web of state and national authorities and responsibilities. The federal government assumed responsibility for the ordering, payment and procurement of COVID vaccine from manufacturers. In designing the subsequent steps in their COVID-19 vaccine distribution and administration plan, the Trump administration decided to rely on the states themselves to determine how best to implement guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This strategy resulted in 50 different plans and 50 different systems for the dissemination of vaccine doses, all at the level of each individual state. State health departments were neither financed, experienced nor uniformly possessed the expertise to develop and implement such plans. A national strategy for the distribution, and the workforce for the provision, of vaccine beyond the state level, similar to that which occurred in Israel, would have provided for greater efficiency and coordination across the country. The US public health infrastructure was ill-prepared and ill-staffed to take on the responsibility to deliver > 450 million doses of vaccine in an expeditious fashion, even if supply of vaccine was available. The failure to adequately invest in public health has been ubiquitous across the nation at all levels of government. Since the 2008 recession, state and local health departments have lost > 38,000 jobs and spending for state public health departments has dropped by 16% per capita and spending for local health departments has fallen by 18%. Hopefully, COVID-19 will be a wakeup call to the US with regard to the need for both a national strategy to address public health emergencies and the well-maintained infrastructure to make it happen.

Download Full-text