Dataset Information

Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Public health resources are limited and best used for effective programs. This study explores associations of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs or continuing ineffective programs) with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making among U.S. local health departments.

Methods

The national U.S. sample for this cross-sectional study was stratified by local health department jurisdiction population size. One person was invited from each randomly selected local health department: the leader in chronic disease, or the director. Of 600 selected, 579 had valid email addresses; 376 completed the survey (64.9% response). Survey items assessed frequency of and reasons for mis-implementation. Participants indicated agreement with statements on organizational supports for evidence-based decision making (7-point Likert).

Results

Thirty percent (30.0%) reported programs often or always ended that should have continued (inappropriate termination); organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were not associated with the frequency of programs ending. The main reason given for inappropriate termination was grant funding ended (86.0%). Fewer (16.4%) reported programs often or always continued that should have ended (inappropriate continuation). Higher perceived organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were associated with less frequent inappropriate continuation (odds ratio?=?0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79, 0.94). All organizational support factors were negatively associated with inappropriate continuation. Top reasons were sustained funding (55.6%) and support from policymakers (34.0%).

Conclusions

Organizational supports for evidence-based decision making may help local health departments avoid continuing programs that should end. Creative mechanisms of support are needed to avoid inappropriate termination. Understanding what influences mis-implementation can help identify supports for de-implementation of ineffective programs so resources can go towards evidence-based programs.

SUBMITTER: Allen P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7106610 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments.

Allen Peg P Jacob Rebekah R RR Parks Renee G RG Mazzucca Stephanie S Hu Hengrui H Robinson Mackenzie M Dobbins Maureen M Dekker Debra D Padek Margaret M Brownson Ross C RC

BMC health services research 20200330 1

<h4>Background</h4>Public health resources are limited and best used for effective programs. This study explores associations of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs or continuing ineffective programs) with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making among U.S. local health departments.<h4>Methods</h4>The national U.S. sample for this cross-sectional study was stratified by local health department jurisdiction population size. One person was invited from ...[more]

PMID: 32228688

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMis-implementation (i.e., the premature termination or inappropriate continuation of public health programs) contributes to the misallocation of limited public health resources and the sub-optimal response to the growing global burden of chronic disease. This study seeks to describe the occurrence of mis-implementation in four countries of differing sizes, wealth, and experience with evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP).MethodsA cross-sectional study of 400 local public health practitioners in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States was conducted from November 2015 to April 2016. Online survey questions focused on how often mis-termination and mis-continuation occur and the most common reasons programs end and continue.ResultsWe found significant differences in knowledge of EBCDP across countries with upwards of 75% of participants from Australia (n = 91/121) and the United States (n = 83/101) reporting being moderately to extremely knowledgeable compared with roughly 60% (n = 47/76) from Brazil and 20% (n = 21/102) from China (p < 0.05). Far greater proportions of participants from China thought effective programs were never mis-terminated (12.2% (n = 12/102) vs. 1% (n = 2/121) in Australia, 2.6% (n = 2/76) in Brazil, and 1.0% (n = 1/101) in the United States; p < 0.05) or were unable to estimate how frequently this happened (45.9% (n = 47/102) vs. 7.1% (n = 7/101) in the United States, 10.5% (n = 8/76) in Brazil, and 1.7% (n = 2/121) in Australia; p < 0.05). The plurality of participants from Australia (58.0%, n = 70/121) and the United States (36.8%, n = 37/101) reported that programs often mis-continued whereas most participants from Brazil (60.5%, n = 46/76) and one third (n = 37/102) of participants from China believed this happened only sometimes (p < 0.05). The availability of funding and support from political authorities, agency leadership, and the general public were common reasons programs continued and ended across all countries. A program's effectiveness or evidence-base-or lack thereof-were rarely reasons for program continuation and termination.ConclusionsDecisions about continuing or ending a program were often seen as a function of program popularity and funding availability as opposed to effectiveness. Policies and practices pertaining to programmatic decision-making should be improved in light of these findings. Future studies are needed to understand and minimize the individual, organizational, and political-level drivers of mis-implementation.

Project description:ObjectiveThe United States Public Health Service released clinical practice guidelines for daily oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in May 2014. Local health departments (LHDs) are expected to play a critical role in PrEP implementation. We surveyed LHDs to assess awareness of and interest in supporting PrEP implementation, what roles they were taking, or believed they should take, in supporting PrEP, and what resources would be required to do so.MethodsLHDs were surveyed in 2015 to assess their engagement in PrEP implementation (n = 500). The study employed a cross-sectional survey design with a randomly selected stratified sample.ResultsAmong responding LHDs (n = 284), 109 (29%, weighted proportion) reported engagement in PrEP implementation. LHDs serving large jurisdictions (population 500,000+) and located in the West were more likely to be engaged in PrEP implementation. Making referrals for PrEP (74%) and conducting education and outreach to community members (51%) were the activities most frequently reported by LHDs engaged in PrEP implementation; 45% anticipated expanding their level of engagement. Among LHDs not engaged in PrEP implementation, 13% expected to become engaged over the next four years, 46% were undecided, and 41% reported it was unlikely. Information about PrEP for health care providers and information about PrEP for health department staff were the most frequently reported resource needs for LHDs engaged and not engaged in PrEP implementation, respectively.ConclusionsPrEP implementation by LHDs was limited in 2015, three years after Food and Drug Administration approval and one year after the U.S. Public Health Service issued clinical practice guidelines. PrEP is a recently available intervention that is requiring LHDs to adjust existing HIV prevention efforts and service delivery models. Additional resources and implementation research is needed to effectively support PrEP scale-up by LHDs. Efforts must also be undertaken to increase PrEP awareness, knowledge, and implementation capacity among LHDs.

Project description:BackgroundGreenland struggles with a high prevalence of smoking, alcohol and drug abuse. In response to the increasing need for preventive initiatives, the first public health program Inuuneritta was introduced in 2007. Internationally, frameworks focus primarily on the implementation of a single, well-described intervention or program. However, with the increasing need and emergence of more holistic, integrated approaches, a need for research investigating the process of policy implementation from launch to action arises. This paper aims to augment the empirical evidence on the implementation of integrated health promotion programs within a governmental setting using the case of Inuuneritta II. In this study, the constraining and enabling determinants of the implementation processes within and across levels and sectors were examined.MethodsQualitative methods with a transdisciplinary approach were applied. Data collection consisted of six phases with different qualitative methods applied to gain a comprehensive overview and understanding of Inuuneritta II's implementation process. These methods included: observations and focus group discussions at the community health worker (CHW) conference, telephone interviews, document analysis, and a workshop on results dissemination.ResultsEnabling determinants influencing the implementation process of Inuuneritta II positively were high motivation among adopters, local prevention committees supporting community health workers, and the initiation of the central prevention committee. In contrast, constraining determinants were ambiguous program aims, high turnovers, siloed budgets and work environments, and an inconsistent and neglected central prevention committee.ConclusionInuuneritta II provided a substantial framework for an integrated health policy approach. However, having a holistic and comprehensive program enabling an integrated approach is not sufficient. Inuuneritta II's integrated approach does not harmonise with the government's inflexible organisational structure resulting in insufficient implementation.

Project description:IntroductionThe dissemination of evidence-based interventions (i.e., programs, practices, and policies) is a core function of US state health departments (SHDs). However, interventions are originally designed and tested with a specific population and context. Hence, adapting the intervention to meet the real-world circumstances and population's needs can increase the likelihood of achieving the expected health outcomes for the target population from the implemented intervention. This study identified how SHD employees decide to adapt public health programs and what influences decisions on how to adapt them.Materials and methodsSHD employees (n = 45) were interviewed using a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Telephone interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were consensus-coded and themes were identified using thematic analysis. Several themes aligned with the Model for Adaptation Design and Impact.ResultsData, outcomes, and health department evaluations influenced decisions to adapt a program (pre-adaptation), and reasons to adapt a program included organizational and sociopolitical contextual factors. SHD middle-level managers, program managers and staff, and local agencies were involved in the decisions to adapt the programs. Finally, the goals for adapting a program included enhancing effectiveness/outcomes, reach and satisfaction with the program; funding; and partner engagement. After SHD employees decided to adapt a program, data and evidence guided the changes. Program staff and evaluators were engaged in the adaptation process. Program managers consulted partners to gather ideas on how best to adapt a program based on partners' experiences implementing the program and obtaining community input. Lastly, program managers also received input on adapting content and context from coalition meetings and periodic technical assistance calls.DiscussionThe findings related to decisions to adapt public health programs provide practitioners with considerations for adapting them. Findings reaffirm the importance of promoting public health competencies in program evaluation and adaptation, as well as systematically documenting and evaluating the adaptation processes. In addition, the themes could be studied in future research as mechanisms, mediators, and moderators to implementation outcomes.

Dataset Information

Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets