Administrative Evidence-based Practices Research Articles

The Relationships Between State Health Department Practitioners' Perceptions of Organizational Supports and Evidence-Based Decision-Making Skills.

Evidence-based decision making (EBDM) allows public health practitioners to implement effective programs and policies fitting the preferences of their communities. To engage in EBDM, practitioners must have skills themselves, their agencies must engage in administrative evidence-based practices (A-EBPs), and leaders must encourage the use of EBDM. We conducted this longitudinal study to quantify perceptions of individual EBDM skills and A-EBPs, as well as the longitudinal associations between the 2. An online survey completed among US state health department practitioners in 2016 and 2018 assessed perceptions of respondents' skills in EBDM and A-EBPs. We used χ2 tests, t tests, and linear regressions to quantify changes over time, differences by demographic characteristics, and longitudinal associations between individual skills and A-EBPs among respondents who completed both surveys (N = 336). Means of most individual EBDM skills and A-EBPs did not change significantly from 2016 to 2018. We found significant positive associations between changes in A-EBPs and changes in EBDM skill gaps: for example, a 1-point increase in the relationships and partnerships score was associated with a narrowing of the EBDM skill gap (β estimate = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.61). At both time points, perceived skills and A-EBPs related to financial practices were low. Findings from this study can guide the development and dissemination of initiatives designed to simultaneously improve individual and organizational capacity for EBDM in public health settings. Future studies should focus on types of strategies most effective to build capacity in particular types of agencies and practitioners, to ultimately improve public health practice.

Practitioner perspectives on building capacity for evidence-based public health in state health departments in the United States: a qualitative case study

BackgroundPublic 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.MethodsChronic 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.ResultsTwenty seven interviews were conducted with practitioners in four states (5–8 interviews per state). All practitioners felt that their work unit culture is positive and that leadership encouraged and expected staff to use evidence-based processes. Participants discussed the provision of trainings and technical assistance as key to workforce development and how leaders communicate their expectations. Access to evidence, partnerships, and funding restrictions were the most commonly discussed barriers to the use of A-EBPs and EBDM.ConclusionsResults of this study highlight practitioners’ perspectives on promoting evidence-based public health in their departments. Findings can inform the development and refinement of resources to improve A-EBP use and organizational and leadership capacity of state health departments.

Administrative Evidence-based Practices in State Chronic Disease Practitioners

Research and lessons from community implementation have informed evidence-based practices that can improve the effectiveness of health initiatives. Administrative evidence-based practices (A-EBPs) facilitate the role of public health departments in implementing the most effective programs and policies. The purpose of this study is to describe A-EBPs in relation to characteristics of chronic disease practitioners in state health departments. Randomly selected chronic disease practitioners who worked in state health departments were invited to complete an online survey in 2016. The survey included questions on five domains of A-EBPs: workforce development, leadership, culture and climate, relationships and partners, and financial practices. State-level variables that could potentially affect the use of A-EBPs were collected and used in a regression model. Analysis was conducted in 2016 on data from 571 respondents. Mean percentages of those who strongly agreed/agreed were lowest for financial practices (41.49%) and leadership (42.33%) with higher means for culture and climate (54.52%) and relationships and partners (58.71%). State poverty level was the only significant predictor of A-EBP scores after adjusting for other covariates in a regression model. These results show several areas of high agreement with A-EBP within the domains measured as well as opportunities for improvement. Highlighting the importance of A-EBPs to public health leadership level may enhance practice. There is also need for developing plans for an aging workforce and cultivating partnerships with health care and other sectors. Findings can be used to target training for enhancement of A-EBPs within state health departments.

Implementing administrative evidence based practices: lessons from the field in six local health departments across the United States.

BackgroundAdministrative 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.MethodsQualitative 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.ResultsAs 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.ConclusionsDifferences 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0891-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What Influences the Use of Administrative Evidence-Based Practices in Local Health Departments?

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.

Editorial Comment: What Influences the Use of Administrative Evidence-Based Practices in Local Health Departments?

In 2012, Frontiers published an article by Allen et al. about identifying administrative and management practices that make up an evidence-based local health department.1 They recommended that local health departments (LHDs) consider using such practices to implement sustained evidence-based policies, programs, and interventions. Strategies that should be given ‘high priority’ for implementation were highlighted. My accompanying editorial2 acknowledged the value of this practical advice to LHDs in optimizing their performance and achieving desired health outcomes.

Evidence-based public health practice among program managers in local public health departments.

We assessed the use of administrative-evidence based practices (A-EBPs) among managers of programs in chronic diseases, environmental health, and infectious diseases from a sample of local health departments (LHDs) in the United States. Program managers completed a survey consisting of 6 sections (biographical data, use of A-EBPs, diffusion attributes, use of resources, and barriers to, and competencies in, evidence-based public health), with a total of 66 questions. The survey was sent electronically to 168 program managers in chronic diseases, 179 in environmental health, and 175 in infectious diseases, representing 228 LHDs. The survey had previously been completed by 517 LHD directors. The use of A-EBPs was scored for 19 individual A-EBPs, across the 5 A-EBP domains, and for all domains combined. Individual characteristics were derived from the survey responses, with additional data on LHDs drawn from linked National Association of County & City Health Officials Profile survey data. Results for program managers were compared across the 3 types of programs and to responses from the previous survey of LHD directors. The scores were ordered and categorized into tertiles. Unconditional logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, comparing individual and agency characteristics for those with the highest third of A-EBPs scores with those with the lowest third. The 332 total responses from program managers represented 196 individual LHDs. Program managers differed (across the 3 programs, and compared with LHD directors) in demographic characteristics, education, and experience. The use of A-EBPs varied widely across specific practices and individuals, but the pattern of responses from directors and program managers was very similar for the majority of A-EBPs. Understanding the differences in educational background, experience, organizational culture, and performance of A-EBPs between program managers and LHD directors is a necessary step to improving competencies in evidence-based public health.

Developing a Tool to Assess Administrative Evidence-Based Practices in Local Health Departments

Originally published as: Reis RS, Duggan K, Allen P, Stamatakis KA, Erwin PC, and Brownson RC. Developing a tool to assess administrative evidence-based practices in local health departments. Frontiers in Public Health Services and Systems Research. 2014;3(3):1–5. PDF available at: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=frontiersinphssr. Rodrigo S. Reis, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana Kathleen Duggan, Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis Peg Allen, Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis Katherine A. Stamatakis, Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis Paul C. Erwin, Department of Public Health, University of Tennessee Ross C. Brownson, Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis There is need for assessing the practices undertaken by local health departments to improve the implementation of evidence-based actions. This paper describes the development and testing of a survey instrument for assessing Administrative Evidence-Based Practices (A-EBPs) in Local Health Departments. A-EBPs identified through a review of the literature were used to develop a survey composed of 9 sections and tested in a sample of local health department practitioners. The resulting tool showed adequate test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Practitioners and researchers may apply this tool in practice-based and evaluation research.

Understanding administrative evidence-based practices: findings from a survey of local health department leaders.

There are sparse data showing the extent to which evidence-based public health is occurring among local health departments. The purpose of the study was to describe the patterns and predictors of administrative evidence-based practices (structures and activities that are associated with performance measures) in a representative sample of local health departments in the U.S. A cross-sectional study of 517 local health department directors was conducted from October through December 2012 (analysis in January-March 2013). The questions on administrative evidence-based practices included 19 items based on a recent literature review (five broad domains: workforce development, leadership, organizational climate and culture, relationships and partnerships, financial processes). There was a wide range in performance among the 19 individual administrative evidence-based practices, ranging from 35% for providing access to current information on evidence-based practices to 96% for funding via a variety of sources Among the five domains, values were generally lowest for organizational climate and culture (mean for the domain=49.9%) and highest for relationships and partnerships (mean for the domain=77.1%). Variables associated with attaining the highest tertile of administrative evidence-based practices included having a population jurisdiction of 25,000 or larger (adjusted ORs [aORs] ranging from 4.4 to 7.5) and state governance structure (aOR=3.1). This research on the patterns and predictors of administrative evidence-based practices in health departments provides information on gaps and areas for improvement that can be linked with ongoing quality improvement processes.