Tracking Success: Outputs Versus Outcomes—A Comparison of Accredited and Non-Accredited Public Health Agencies’ Community Health Improvement Plan objectives

Abstract

With funding for public health initiatives declining, creating measurable objectives that are focused on tracking and changing population outcomes (i.e., knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors), instead of those that are focused on health agencies' own outputs (e.g., promoting services, developing communication messages) have seen a renewed focus. This study analyzed 4094 objectives from the Community Health Improvement Plans (CHIPs) of 280 local PHAB-accredited and non-accredited public health agencies across the United States. Results revealed that accredited agencies were no more successful at creating outcomes-focused objectives (35% of those coded) compared to non-accredited agencies (33% of those coded; Z = 1.35, p = .18). The majority of objectives were focused on outputs (accredited: 61.2%; non-accredited: 63.3%; Z = 0.72, p = .47). Outcomes-focused objectives primarily sought to change behaviors (accredited: 85.43%; non-accredited: 80.6%), followed by changes in knowledge (accredited: 9.75%; non-accredited: 10.8%) and attitudes (accredited: 1.6%; non-accredited: 5.1%). Non-accredited agencies had more double-barreled objectives (49.9%) compared to accredited agencies (32%; Z = 11.43, p < .001). The authors recommend that accreditation procedures place a renewed focus on ensuring that public health agencies strive to achieve outcomes. It is also advocated that public health agencies work with interdisciplinary teams of Health Communicators who can help them develop procedures to effectively and efficiently measure outcomes of knowledge and attitudes that are influential drivers of behavioral changes.