scholarly journals Moving the Needle on Action Around Evidence-Based Screening for Hereditary Conditions: Preparing State Chronic Disease Directors to Advance Precision Public Health

2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (3) ◽  
pp. 228-233
Author(s):  
Amy Ponte ◽  
Samantha Greenberg ◽  
Karen Greendale ◽  
Laura Senier
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Precision Public Health ◽  
Hereditary Conditions

Evidence-Based Approach for Disaster Preparedness Authorities to Inform the Contents of Repositories for Prescription Medications for Chronic Disease Management and Control

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 447-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Brown ◽  
Stacy L. Young ◽  
Michael M. Engelgau ◽  
George A. Mensah
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Causes Of Death ◽  
Prescription Medication ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Narcotic Analgesics ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
Drug Classes ◽  
And Control

AbstractIntroduction:Chronic diseases are major causes of death and disability and often require multiple prescribed medications for treatment and control. Public health emergencies (e.g., disasters due to natural hazards) that disrupt the availability or supply of these medications may exacerbate chronic disease or even cause death.Problem:A repository of chronic disease pharmaceuticals and medical supplies organized for rapid response in the event of a public health emergency is desirable. However, there is no science base for determining the contents of such a repository. This study provides the first step in an evidence-based approach to inform the planning, periodic review, and revision of repositories of chronic disease medications.Methods:Data from the 2004 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) were used to examine the prescription medication needs of persons presenting to US hospital emergency departments for chronic disease exacerbations. It was assumed that the typical distribution of cases for an emergency department will reflect the patient population treated in the days after a public health emergency. The estimated numbers of prescribed drugs for chronic conditions that represent the five leading causes of death, the five leading primary diagnoses for physician office visits, and the five leading causes of disease burden assessed by disability-adjusted life years are presented.Results:The 2004 NHAMCS collected data on 36,589 patient visits that were provided by 376 emergency departments. Overall, the five drug classes mentioned most frequently for emergency department visits during 2004 were narcotic analgesics (30.7 million), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (25.2 million), non-narcotic analgesics (15.2 million), sedatives and hypnotics (10.4 million), and cephalosporins (8.2 million). The drug classes mentioned most frequently for chronic conditions were: (1) for heart disease, antianginal agents/vasodilators (715,000); (2) for cancer, narcotic analgesics (53,000); (3) for stroke, non-narcotic analgesics (138,000); (4) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anti-asthmatics/bronchodilators (3.2 million); and (5) for diabetes, hypoglycemic agents (261,000). Ten medication categories were common across four or more chronic conditions.Conclusions:Persons with chronic diseases have an urgent need for ongoing care and medical support after public health emergencies. These findings provide one evidence-based approach for informing public health preparedness in terms of planning for and review of the prescription medication needs of clinically vulnerable populations with prevalent chronic disease.

scholarly journals Integrated implementation of evidence-based interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening through public health-primary care partnerships

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy Soloe ◽  
Laura Arena ◽  
Dara Schlueter ◽  
Stephanie Melillo ◽  
Amy DeGroff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Primary Care Clinics ◽  
Crc Screening

Abstract Background In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), which partners with health systems and primary care clinics to increase CRC screening uptake. We interviewed CRCCP stakeholders to explore factors that support an integrated implementation of evidence-based interventions and supporting activities to promote CRC screening with other screening and chronic disease management activities in primary care clinics. Methods Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we conducted a literature review and identified constructs to guide data collection and analysis. We purposively selected four CRCCP awardees that demonstrated ongoing engagement with clinic partner sites, willingness to collaborate with CDC and other stakeholders, and availability of high-quality data. We gathered background information on the selected program sites and conducted primary data collection interviews with program staff and partners. We used NVivo QSR 11.0 to systematically pilot-code interview data, achieving a Kappa coefficient of 0.8 or higher, and then implemented a stepwise process to identify site-specific and cross-cutting emergent themes. Results Programs reported that they support clinic partners’ integrated implementation by providing coordinated application processes and braided funding streams, and by funding partner organizations to provide technical assistance to support efficient implementation of evidence-based interventions and supporting activities into existing clinic workflows. These actions, in turn, support clinics in implementing evidence-based interventions and supporting activities that promote both CRC screening and other chronic disease screening and management. Discussion The selected CRCCP programs and their partners implement activities to support the integration of evidence-based interventions and supporting activities with other clinic efforts. These integrated efforts support increased efficiency of clinic workflow, improved coordination of patient care, increased uptake of screening and improved patient outcomes. Conclusions The findings provide insights into how public health programs can support primary care clinics in integrating interventions and activities into existing workflows to support efficient, coordinated delivery of quality patient-centered care.

scholarly journals Building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in public health: a cluster randomized trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. K. Lofters ◽  
M. A. O’Brien ◽  
R. Sutradhar ◽  
A. D. Pinto ◽  
N. N. Baxter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Chronic Disease Prevention ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Wait List ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Abstract Background The BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) intervention was designed to integrate the approach to chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care and demonstrated effective in a previous randomized trial. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the BETTER HEALTH intervention, a public health adaptation of BETTER, at improving participation in chronic disease prevention and screening actions for residents of low-income neighbourhoods in a cluster randomized trial, with ten low-income neighbourhoods in Durham Region Ontario randomized to immediate intervention vs. wait-list. The unit of analysis was the individual, and eligible participants were adults age 40–64 years residing in the neighbourhoods. Public health nurses trained as “prevention practitioners” held one prevention-focused visit with each participant. They provided participants with a tailored prevention prescription and supported them to set health-related goals. The primary outcome was a composite index: the number of evidence-based actions achieved at six months as a proportion of those for which participants were eligible at baseline. Results Of 126 participants (60 in immediate arm; 66 in wait-list arm), 125 were included in analyses (1 participant withdrew consent). In both arms, participants were eligible for a mean of 8.6 actions at baseline. At follow-up, participants in the immediate intervention arm met 64.5% of actions for which they were eligible versus 42.1% in the wait-list arm (rate ratio 1.53 [95% confidence interval 1.22–1.84]). Conclusion Public health nurses using the BETTER HEALTH intervention led to a higher proportion of identified evidence-based prevention and screening actions achieved at six months for people living with socioeconomic disadvantage. Trial registration NCT03052959, registered February 10, 2017.

scholarly journals Barriers to Evidence-Based Decision Making in Public Health: A National Survey of Chronic Disease Practitioners

2010 ◽  
Vol 125 (5) ◽  
pp. 736-742 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie A. Jacobs ◽  
Elizabeth A. Dodson ◽  
Elizabeth A. Baker ◽  
Anjali D. Deshpande ◽  
Ross C. Brownson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Training Practitioners in Evidence-Based Chronic Disease Prevention for Global Health

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross C. Brownson ◽  
Gunter Diem ◽  
Vilius Grabauskas ◽  
Branka Legetic ◽  
Rimma Potemkina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Critical Mass ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Too often, public health decisions are based on short-term demands rather than long-term research and objectives. Policies and programmes are sometimes developed around anecdotal evidence. The Evidence-Based Public Health (EBPH) programme trains public health practitioners to use a comprehensive, scientific approach when developing and evaluating chronic disease programmes. Begun in 2002, the EBPH programme is an international collaboration. The course is organized in seven parts to teach skills in: 1) assessing a community's needs; 2) quantifying the issue; 3) developing a concise statement of the issue; 4) determining what is known about the issue by reviewing the scientific literature; 5) developing and prioritizing programme and policy options; 6) developing an action plan and implementing interventions; and 7) evaluating the programme or policy. The course takes an applied approach and emphasizes information that is readily available to busy practitioners, relying on experiential learning and includes lectures, practice exercises, and case studies. It focuses n using evidence-based tools and encourages participants to add to the evidence base in areas where intervention knowledge is sparse. Through this training programme, we educated practitioners from 38 countries in 4 continents. This article describes the evolution of the parent course and describes experiences implementing the course in the Russian Federation, Lithuania, and Chile. Lessons learned from replication of the course include the need to build a “critical mass” of public health officials trained in EBPH within each country and the importance of international, collaborative networks. Scientific and technologic advances provide unprecedented opportunities for public health professionals to enhance the practice of EBPH. To take full advantage of new technology and tools and to combat new health challenges, public health practitioners must continually improve their skills.

LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam M. Messinger
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Sexual Relationships ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy Practice ◽  
The Past ◽  
Victim Services ◽  
Public Health Threat

Many nations today recognize intimate partner violence (IPV) in romantic-sexual relationships as a major public health threat, yet not all victims are treated equally. Contrary to myths, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, and queer (LGBTQ) people are more likely to experience IPV than heterosexual-cisgender people. Unfortunately, LGBTQ victims face major barriers to reaching safety in a world that too often stigmatizes their identities and overlooks their relationships when forming victim services and policies. Offering a roadmap forward, LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence: Lessons for Policy, Practice, and Research is the first book to synthesize nearly all existing research from the past forty years on this pressing issue. At once highly organized and engaging, it provides evidence-based tips for academic and nonacademic audiences alike.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document