S. René Lavinghouze

The Component Model of Infrastructure: A Practical Approach to Understanding Public Health Program Infrastructure

Functioning program infrastructure is necessary for achieving public health outcomes. It is what supports program capacity, implementation, and sustainability. The public health program infrastructure model presented in this article is grounded in data from a broader evaluation of 18 state tobacco control programs and previous work. The newly developed Component Model of Infrastructure (CMI) addresses the limitations of a previous model and contains 5 core components (multilevel leadership, managed resources, engaged data, responsive plans and planning, networked partnerships) and 3 supporting components (strategic understanding, operations, contextual influences). The CMI is a practical, implementation-focused model applicable across public health programs, enabling linkages to capacity, sustainability, and outcome measurement.

Consideration of an applied model of public health program infrastructure.

Systemic infrastructure is key to public health achievements. Individual public health program infrastructure feeds into this larger system. Although program infrastructure is rarely defined, it needs to be operationalized for effective implementation and evaluation. The Ecological Model of Infrastructure (EMI) is one approach to defining program infrastructure. The EMI consists of 5 core (Leadership, Partnerships, State Plans, Engaged Data, and Managed Resources) and 2 supporting (Strategic Understanding and Tactical Action) elements that are enveloped in a programs context. We conducted a literature search across public health programs to determine support for the EMI. Four of the core elements were consistently addressed, and the other EMI elements were intermittently addressed. The EMI provides an initial and partial model for understanding program infrastructure, but additional work is needed to identify evidence-based indicators of infrastructure elements that can be used to measure success and link infrastructure to public health outcomes, capacity, and sustainability.

The environmental assessment instrument: harnessing the environment for programmatic success.

This article describes the Environmental Assessment Instrument (EAI), a tool designed to help public health professionals analyze and then engage the environment in which programs operate. The prevailing environment is an important force that must be considered in an integrated systems approach when implementing programs and policies. The Division of Oral Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed the EAI to facilitate the ability of a state oral health program to understand their environment and the impact it has on the achievement of performance objectives. EAI results are plotted on a four-quadrant grid that depicts four types of change—stagnant, disruptive, continuous, and sporadic. General strategies are suggested based on these categories of change. By assessing environmental influences, program and policy planners can determine salient leverage points within their environment, identify strategies to address barriers to success, and build on supportive features in the environment.

Strategies to Support Tobacco Cessation and Tobacco-Free Environments in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Facilities

We identified and described strategies for promoting smoking cessation and smoke-free environments that were implemented in Oregon and Utah in treatment centers for mental illness and substance abuse. We reviewed final evaluation reports submitted by state tobacco control programs (TCPs) to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and transcripts from a call study evaluation. The TCPs described factors that assisted in implementing strategies: being ready for opportunity, having a sound infrastructure, and having a branded initiative. These strategies could be used by other programs serving high-need populations for whom evidence-based interventions are still being developed.

Developing Your Evaluation Plans: A Critical Component of Public Health Program Infrastructure

A programs infrastructure is often cited as critical to public health success. The Component Model of Infrastructure (CMI) identifies evaluation as essential under the core component of engaged data. An evaluation plan is a written document that describes how to monitor and evaluate a program, as well as how to use evaluation results for program improvement and decision making. The evaluation plan clarifies how to describe what the program did, how it worked, and why outcomes matter. We use the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) “Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health” as a guide for developing an evaluation plan. Just as using a roadmap facilitates progress on a long journey, a well-written evaluation plan can clarify the direction your evaluation takes and facilitate achievement of the evaluations objectives.

Measuring infrastructure: A key step in program evaluation and planning

State tobacco prevention and control programs (TCPs) require a fully functioning infrastructure to respond effectively to the Surgeon Generals call for accelerating the national reduction in tobacco use. The literature describes common elements of infrastructure; however, a lack of valid and reliable measures has made it difficult for program planners to monitor relevant infrastructure indicators and address observed deficiencies, or for evaluators to determine the association among infrastructure, program efforts, and program outcomes. The Component Model of Infrastructure (CMI) is a comprehensive, evidence-based framework that facilitates TCP program planning efforts to develop and maintain their infrastructure. Measures of CMI components were needed to evaluate the models utility and predictive capability for assessing infrastructure. This paper describes the development of CMI measures and results of a pilot test with nine state TCP managers. Pilot test findings indicate that the tool has good face validity and is clear and easy to follow. The CMI tool yields data that can enhance public health efforts in a funding-constrained environment and provides insight into program sustainability. Ultimately, the CMI measurement tool could facilitate better evaluation and program planning across public health programs.

State tobacco control expenditures and tax paid cigarette sales

This research is the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between actual state-level tobacco control spending in each of the 5 CDC’s Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Program categories and cigarette sales. We employed several alternative two-way fixed-effects regression techniques to estimate the determinants of cigarette sales in the United States for the years 2008–2012. State spending on tobacco control was found to have a negative and significant impact on cigarette sales in all models that were estimated. Spending in the areas of cessation interventions, health communication interventions, and state and community interventions were found to have a negative impact on cigarette sales in all models that were estimated, whereas spending in the areas of surveillance and evaluation, and administration and management were found to have negative effects on cigarette sales in only some models. Our models predict that states that spend up to seven times their current levels could still see significant reductions in cigarette sales. The findings from this research could help inform further investments in state tobacco control programs.

State Tobacco Control Program Implementation Strategies for Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing

Multiunit housing residents are at risk of secondhand smoke exposure from adjoining units and common areas. We developed this case study to document state-level strategies undertaken to address this risk. We explored program documents to identify facilitators, barriers, and outcomes. Three states (Montana, Michigan, and Nebraska) provided detailed information on multiunit housing efforts in the study time frame. We conducted a qualitative analysis using inductive coding to develop themes. Several facilitators relating to existing infrastructure included traditional and nontraditional partnerships, leadership and champions, collecting and using data, efficient use of resources, and strategic plans. We also report external catalysts, barriers, and outcomes. Significant state leadership and effort were required to provide local-level technical assistance to engage traditional and nontraditional partners. Information needs were identified and varied by stakeholder type (i.e., health vs. housing). States recommend starting with public housing authorities, so they can become resources for affordable and subsidized housing. These lessons and resources can be used to inform smoke-free multiunit housing initiatives in other states and localities.