Carson Smith

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act Banning Outdoor Tobacco Advertising Near Schools and Playgrounds

BACKGROUND The tobacco industry has challenged new FDA rules restricting outdoor tobacco advertising near schools and playgrounds on First Amendment grounds, arguing that they would lead to a near complete ban on tobacco advertising in dense urban areas. PURPOSE To examine how the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) rules banning outdoor tobacco advertising near schools and playgrounds would affect tobacco retailers. METHODS GIS spatial analyses of two different states (Missouri, New York), along with more detailed analyses of two urban areas within those states (St. Louis, New York City), were conducted in 2010. The percentage of tobacco retailers falling within 350-, 500-, and 1000-foot buffer zones was then calculated. RESULTS 22% of retailers in Missouri and 51% in New York fall within 1000-foot buffers around schools. In urban settings, more retailers are affected, 29% in St. Louis and 79% in New York City. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that smaller buffers decrease the proportion of affected retailers. That is, 350-foot buffers affect only 6.7% of retailers in St. Louis and 29% in New York City. CONCLUSIONS The effects of new outdoor tobacco advertising restrictions vary by location and population density. In Missouri and New York, outdoor tobacco advertising would still be permitted in many locations if such advertising was prohibited in a 1000-foot buffer zone around schools and playgrounds. Much smaller buffer zones of 350 feet may result in almost no reduction of outdoor advertising in many parts of the country.

Preventing cardiovascular disease through community-based risk reduction : The bootheel heart health project

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine whether a community-based risk reduction project affected behavioral risk factors for cardiovascular disease. METHODS Community-based activities (e.g., exercise groups, healthy cooking demonstrations, blood pressure and cholesterol screenings, and cardiovascular disease education) were conducted in six southeastern Missouri counties. Evaluation involved population-based, cross-sectional samples of adult residents of the state and the intervention region. Weighted prevalence estimates were calculated for self-reported physical inactivity, cigarette smoking, consumption of fruits and vegetables, overweight, and cholesterol screening. RESULTS Physical inactivity decreased within the intervention region, that is, in communities where heart health coalitions were developed and among respondents who were aware of these coalitions. In addition, the prevalence rates for reports of cholesterol screening within the past 2 years were higher for respondents in areas with coalitions and among persons who were aware of the coalitions. CONCLUSIONS Even with modest resources, community-based interventions show promise in reducing self-reported risk for cardiovascular disease within a relatively brief period.

Physical activity on the job and cancer in Missouri.

We conducted a series of case-control studies to investigate the risks of 16 cancer types in relation to occupational physical activity. These studies were based on Missouri Cancer Registry data for 17,147 White male cancer patients registered between 1984 and 1989. Colon cancer risk was increased for both the moderate (odds ratio (OR) = 1.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0, 1.3) and low (OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.0, 1.5) activity levels. Similar elevations were observed for prostate cancer at the moderate (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 1.0, 1.3) and low (OR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.2, 1.8) levels of activity, and for cancer of the testis at the low activity level (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.3, 3.7). An opposite trend (p less than 0.01) was noted for lung cancer, which showed decreased risk at the moderate (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = 0.8, 1.0) and low (OR = 0.8; 95% CI = 0.6, 0.9) activity levels. These associations suggest that further study of the relationship between physical activity and site-specific cancer risk is warranted.

Capacity building for evidence-based decision making in local health departments: Scaling up an effective training approach

BackgroundThere are few studies describing how to scale up effective capacity-building approaches for public health practitioners. This study tested local-level evidence-based decision making (EBDM) capacity-building efforts in four U.S. states (Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington) with a quasi-experimental design.MethodsPartners within the four states delivered a previously established Evidence-Based Public Health (EBPH) training curriculum to local health department (LHD) staff. They worked with the research team to modify the curriculum with local data and examples while remaining attentive to course fidelity. Pre- and post-assessments of course participants (n = 82) and an external control group (n = 214) measured importance, availability (i.e., how available a skill is when needed, either within the skillset of the respondent or among others in the agency), and gaps in ten EBDM competencies. Simple and multiple linear regression models assessed the differences between pre- and post-assessment scores. Course participants also assessed the impact of the course on their work.ResultsCourse participants reported greater increases in the availability, and decreases in the gaps, in EBDM competencies at post-test, relative to the control group. In adjusted models, significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in `action planning,’ `evaluation design,’ `communicating research to policymakers,’ `quantifying issues (using descriptive epidemiology),’ and `economic evaluation.’ Nearly 45% of participants indicated that EBDM increased within their agency since the training. Course benefits included becoming better leaders and making scientifically informed decisions.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential for improving EBDM capacity among LHD practitioners using a train-the-trainer approach involving diverse partners. This approach allowed for local tailoring of strategies and extended the reach of the EBPH course.

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

OBJECTIVES 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. DESIGN 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. PARTICIPANTS 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. MEASURES 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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.

The diffusion of evidence-based decision making among local health department practitioners in the United States

OBJECTIVES Evidence-based decision making (EBDM) is the process, in local health departments (LHDs) and other settings, of translating the best available scientific evidence into practice. Local health departments are more likely to be successful if they use evidence-based strategies. However, EBDM and use of evidence-based strategies by LHDs are not widespread. Drawing on diffusion of innovations theory, we sought to understand how LHD directors and program managers perceive the relative advantage, compatibility, simplicity, and testability of EBDM. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Directors and managers of programs in chronic disease, environmental health, and infectious disease from LHDs nationwide completed a survey including demographic information and questions about diffusion attributes (advantage, compatibility, simplicity, and testability) related to EBDM. Bivariate inferential tests were used to compare responses between directors and managers and to examine associations between participant characteristics and diffusion attributes. RESULTS Relative advantage and compatibility scores were high for directors and managers, whereas simplicity and testability scores were lower. Although health department directors and managers of programs in chronic disease generally had higher scores than other groups, there were few significant or large differences between directors and managers across the diffusion attributes. Larger jurisdiction population size was associated with higher relative advantage and compatibility scores for both directors and managers. CONCLUSIONS Overall, directors and managers were in strong agreement on the relative advantage of an LHD using EBDM, with directors in stronger agreement than managers. Perceived relative advantage has been demonstrated to be the most important factor in the rate of innovation adoption, suggesting an opportunity for directors to speed EBDM adoption. However, lower average scores across all groups for simplicity and testability may be hindering EBDM adoption. Recommended strategies for increasing perceived EBDM simplicity and testability are provided.

Assessing Capacity for Sustainability of Effective Programs and Policies in Local Health Departments

CONTEXT Sustainability has been defined as the existence of structures and processes that allow a program to leverage resources to effectively implement and maintain evidence-based public health and is important in local health departments (LHDs) to retain the benefits of effective programs. OBJECTIVE Explore the applicability of the Program Sustainability Framework in high- and low-capacity LHDs as defined by national performance standards. DESIGN Case study interviews from June to July 2013. Standard qualitative methodology was used to code transcripts; codes were developed inductively and deductively. SETTING Six geographically diverse LHDs (selected from 3 of high and 3 of low capacity) PARTICIPANTS : 35 LHD practitioners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Thematic reports explored the 8 domains (Organizational Capacity, Program Adaptation, Program Evaluation, Communications, Strategic Planning, Funding Stability, Environmental Support, and Partnerships) of the Program Sustainability Framework. RESULTS High-capacity LHDs described having environmental support, while low-capacity LHDs reported this was lacking. Both high- and low-capacity LHDs described limited funding; however, high-capacity LHDs reported greater funding flexibility. Partnerships were important to high- and low-capacity LHDs, and both described building partnerships to sustain programming. Regarding organizational capacity, high-capacity LHDs reported better access to and support for adequate staff and staff training when compared with low-capacity LHDs. While high-capacity LHDs described integration of program evaluation into implementation and sustainability, low-capacity LHDs reported limited capacity for measurement specifically and evaluation generally. When high-capacity LHDs described program adoption, they discussed an opportunity to adapt and evaluate. Low-capacity LHDs struggled with programs requiring adaptation. High-capacity LHDs described higher quality communication than low-capacity LHDs. High- and low-capacity LHDs described strategic planning, but high-capacity LHDs reported efforts to integrate evidence-based public health. CONCLUSIONS Investments in leadership support for improving organizational capacity, improvements in communication from the top of the organization, integrating program evaluation into implementation, and greater funding flexibility may enhance sustainability of evidence-based public health in LHDs.

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.