Qaiser Mukhtar

Obesity Prevention and Diabetes Screening at Local Health Departments

OBJECTIVES We assessed whether local health departments (LHDs) were conducting obesity prevention programs and diabetes screening programs, and we examined associations between LHD characteristics and whether they conducted these programs. METHODS We used the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of 2300 LHDs nationwide. We used multivariate logistic regressions to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS Approximately 56% of LHDs had obesity prevention programs, 51% had diabetes screening programs, and 34% had both. After controlling for other factors, we found that employing health educators was significantly associated with LHDs conducting obesity prevention programs (OR = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.54, 2.81) and diabetes screening programs (OR = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.23, 2.17). We also found that conducting chronic disease surveillance was significantly associated with LHDs conducting obesity prevention programs (OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.26, 2.20) and diabetes screening programs (OR = 2.44; 95% CI = 1.90, 3.15). LHDs with a higher burden of diabetes prevalence were more likely to conduct diabetes screening programs (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.11, 1.31) but not obesity prevention programs. CONCLUSIONS The presence of obesity prevention and diabetes screening programs was significantly associated with LHD structural capacity and general performance. However, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of both types of programs remain unknown.

Implementing program evaluation and accountability for population health: progress of a national diabetes control effort.

Diabetes affects some 16 million Americans at a cost estimated at

Use of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System optional diabetes module by states.

100 billion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds a diabetes control program (DCP) in every state as part of the National Diabetes Control Program (NDCP). In 1999, a new policy added emphasis on evaluation and made NDCP and its DCPs accountable for achieving impacts related to the health of populations with diabetes. The article reports on the experiences of the NDCP in implementing a performance-based program evaluation paradigm. It also discusses potential future directions for national diabetes-control efforts.

Comparing 2 National Organization-Level Workplace Health Promotion and Improvement Tools, 2013–2015

An optional diabetes module of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System was first made available to states in 1993. In 2002, 49 states administered this module. In October 2001 we asked state Diabetes Prevention and Control Program coordinators to complete a two-part questionnaire regarding the use of data from the diabetes module and their usefulness in guiding programmatic activities. Seventy percent of state coordinators reported using data from at least one module question to perform program evaluation, develop publications, and development of community interventions; 45 percent of coordinators used data from at least one module question for activities related to passage of legislation. Questions on self monitoring of blood glucose, hemoglobin A1c test, annual foot exam, annual dilated eye exam, and diabetes education were rated as highly useful by the state coordinators. The results from the optional diabetes module are widely used by states and are essential to Diabetes Prevention and Control Program activities. It is important that the optional diabetes module continue to be included in each states yearly Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

A Summary of Public Access Defibrillation Laws, United States, 2010

Creating healthy workplaces is becoming more common. Half of employers that have more than 50 employees offer some type of workplace health promotion program. Few employers implement comprehensive evidence-based interventions that reach all employees and achieve desired health and cost outcomes. A few organization-level assessment and benchmarking tools have emerged to help employers evaluate the comprehensiveness and rigor of their health promotion offerings. Even fewer tools exist that combine assessment with technical assistance and guidance to implement evidence-based practices. Our descriptive analysis compares 2 such tools, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Worksite Health ScoreCard and Prevention Partners’ WorkHealthy America, and presents data from both to describe workplace health promotion practices across the United States. These tools are reaching employers of all types (N = 1,797), and many employers are using a comprehensive approach (85% of those using WorkHealthy America and 45% of those using the ScoreCard), increasing program effectiveness and impact.