Dataset Information

Health Departments With A Commitment To Health Equity: A More Skilled Workforce And Higher-Quality Collaborations.

ABSTRACT: Health equity is a public health priority, yet little is known about commitment to health equity in health departments, especially among practitioners whose work addresses chronic disease prevention. Their work places them at the forefront of battling the top contributors to disparities in morbidity and mortality. A random sample of 537 chronic disease practitioners working in state health departments was surveyed on health equity commitments, partnerships, and needed skills. A small percentage of respondents (2 percent) worked primarily on health equity, and a larger group (9 percent) included health equity as one of their multiple work areas. People who rated their work unit's commitment to health equity as high were more likely to engage with sectors outside of health and rate their leaders as high quality, and less likely to identify skills gaps in their work unit. Opportunities exist to more fully address health equity in state public health practice through organizational, institutional, and governmental policies, including those regarding resource allocation and staff training.

SUBMITTER: Furtado KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5975259 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Health Departments With A Commitment To Health Equity: A More Skilled Workforce And Higher-Quality Collaborations.

Furtado Karishma S KS Brownson Carol C Fershteyn Zarina Z Macchi Marti M Eyler Amy A Valko Cheryl C Brownson Ross C RC

Health affairs (Project Hope) 20180101 1

Health equity is a public health priority, yet little is known about commitment to health equity in health departments, especially among practitioners whose work addresses chronic disease prevention. Their work places them at the forefront of battling the top contributors to disparities in morbidity and mortality. A random sample of 537 chronic disease practitioners working in state health departments was surveyed on health equity commitments, partnerships, and needed skills. A small percentage ...[more]

PMID: 29309233

Similar Datasets

Project description:International collaborations have become the standard model for global health research and often include researchers and institutions from high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While such collaborations are important for generating new knowledge that will help address global health inequities, there is evidence to suggest that current forms of collaboration may reproduce unequal power relations. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study with scientists, researchers and those involved in research management, working in international health collaborations. Interviews were conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. We conducted 13 interviews with 15 participants. From our findings, we derive three major themes. First, our results reflect characteristics of equitable, collaborative research relationships. Here we find both relational features, specifically trust and belonging, and structural features, including clear contractual agreements, capacity building, inclusive divisions of labour, and the involvement of local communities. Second, we discuss obstacles to develop equitable collaborations. These include exclusionary labour practices, donor-driven research agendas, overall research culture, lack of accountability and finally, the inadequate financing of indirect costs for LMIC institutions. Third, we discuss the responsibilities for promoting science equity of funders, LMIC researchers, LMIC institutions, and LMIC governments. While other empirical studies have suggested similar features of equity, our findings extend these features to include local communities as collaborators in research projects and not only as beneficiaries. We also suggest the importance of funders paying for indirect costs, without which the capacity of LMIC institutions will continually erode. And finally, our study shows the responsibilities of LMIC actors in developing equitable collaborations, which have largely been absent from the literature.

Project description:ContextAs the science and practice of syndromic surveillance (SyS) evolve, it has increasing utility for public health surveillance at the local level. Local health departments (LHDs) require specific organizational and workforce capabilities to use SyS data. In 2013, more than half of the LHDs reported using SyS, although little has been reported about LHD workforce capabilities in SyS.ObjectiveTo conduct an assessment of self-reported knowledge and skills in SyS tasks to effectively target technical assistance to different levels of LHD need.Design, setting, and participantsA stratified sampling design based on LHD jurisdiction population and SyS status was employed. Data were drawn from the 2015 Biosurveillance Needs Assessment Survey, which captured variables related to LHD use of SyS, management of systems, and self-reported proficiencies in a typology of SyS functionalities developed by a workgroup of subject matter experts in SyS. Respondents were US-based LHD public health practitioners. Estimation weights were applied during analysis to determine the national representation of the responses.Main outcome measuresRespondents self-reported proficiency in 26 SyS tasks within 5 categories, analyzed by LHD jurisdiction size and respondents' years of SyS experience.ResultsSyS expertise varied widely across LHDs. Less than 50% of workers who have access to SyS demonstrated overall proficiency within any of the task areas: communication, data use, data analysis, quality monitoring and assurance, and system design and development. SyS users were strongest in data use tasks. Proficiency in SyS practice corresponded directly with respondents' years of SyS experience and the LHD jurisdiction size.ConclusionSyS practitioners display a wide range of proficiencies both within and across SyS tasks. Considerable gaps in proficiencies of all areas of SyS practice indicate a need for technical assistance and knowledge dissemination to improve SyS practice as an important component of an LHD surveillance strategy.

Project description:Introduction and methodAfrica is currently host to a number of international genomics research and biobanking consortia, each with a mandate to advance genomics research and biobanking in Africa. Whilst most of these consortia promise to transform the way international health research is done in Africa, few have articulated exactly how they propose to go about this. In this paper, we report on a qualitative interviewing study in which we involved 17 genomics researchers in Africa. We describe their perceptions and expectations of international genomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa.ResultsAll interviewees were of the view that externally funded genomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa, have played a critical role in building capacity for genomics research and biobanking in Africa and in providing an opportunity for researchers in Africa to collaborate and network with other researchers. Whilst the opportunity to collaborate was seen as a benefit, some interviewees stressed the importance of recognizing that these collaborations carry mutual benefits for all partners, including their collaborators in HICs. They also voiced two major concerns of being part of these collaborative initiatives: the possibility of exploitation of African researchers and the non-sustainability of research capacity building efforts. As a way of minimising exploitation, researchers in Africa recommended that genuine efforts be made to create transparent and equitable international health research partnerships. They suggested that this could be achieved through,: having rules of engagement, enabling African researchers to contribute to the design and conduct of international health projects in Africa, and mutual and respectful exchange of experience and capacity between research collaborators. These were identified as hallmarks to equitable international health research collaborations in Africa.ConclusionGenomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa such as H3Africa have gone some way in defining aspects of fair and equitable research collaborations in Africa. However, they will need to strive at achieving equitable health research collaborations if they truly aim at setting a gold standard for how international health research should be conducted in Africa.

Project description:BackgroundDue to striking disparities in the implementation of healthcare innovations, it is imperative that researchers and practitioners can meaningfully use implementation determinant frameworks to understand why disparities exist in access, receipt, use, quality, or outcomes of healthcare. Our prior work documented and piloted the first published adaptation of an existing implementation determinant framework with health equity domains to create the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We recommended integrating these three health equity domains to existing implementation determinant frameworks: (1) culturally relevant factors of recipients, (2) clinical encounter or patient-provider interaction, and (3) societal context (including but not limited to social determinants of health). This framework was developed for healthcare and clinical practice settings. Some implementation teams have begun using the Health Equity Implementation Framework in their evaluations and asked for more guidance.MethodsWe completed a consensus process with our authorship team to clarify steps to incorporate a health equity lens into an implementation determinant framework.ResultsWe describe steps to integrate health equity domains into implementation determinant frameworks for implementation research and practice. For each step, we compiled examples or practical tools to assist implementation researchers and practitioners in applying those steps. For each domain, we compiled definitions with supporting literature, showcased an illustrative example, and suggested sample quantitative and qualitative measures.ConclusionIncorporating health equity domains within implementation determinant frameworks may optimize the scientific yield and equity of implementation efforts by assessing and ideally addressing implementation and equity barriers simultaneously. These practical guidance and tools provided can assist implementation researchers and practitioners to concretely capture and understand barriers and facilitators to implementation disparities.

Dataset Information

Health Departments With A Commitment To Health Equity: A More Skilled Workforce And Higher-Quality Collaborations.

Publications

Health Departments With A Commitment To Health Equity: A More Skilled Workforce And Higher-Quality Collaborations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets