Sergey Sotnikov

Public Health Systems Research: Setting a National Agenda

The Institute of Medicine has recommended that policy decisions about improvement of national public health systems be guided by sound scientific evidence. However, to date there is no national research agenda to help guide public health systems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was called upon to lead a collaborative consensus-based process to define key research questions and establish a framework to create opportunities to better coordinate, leverage, and identify public health resources, which are increasingly scarce. The public health systems research agenda that emerged from this process has 14 over-arching priority research themes. This national agenda should stimulate and guide research to meet the urgent need to improve the nations public health systems.

The Business Case for Preconception Care: Methods and Issues

Only a limited number of economic evaluations have addressed the costs and benefits of preconception care. In order to persuade health care providers, payers, or purchasers to become actively involved in promoting preconception care, it is important to demonstrate the value of doing so through development of a “business case”. Perceived benefits in terms of organizational reputation and market share can be influential in forming a business case. In addition, it is standard to include an economic analysis of financial costs and benefits from the perspective of the provider practice, payer, or purchaser in a business case. The methods, data needs, and other issues involved with preparing an economic analysis of the likely financial return on investment in preconception care are presented here. This is accompanied by a review or case study of economic evaluations of preconception care for women with recognized diabetes. Although the data are not sufficient to draw firm conclusions, there are indications that such care may yield positive financial benefits to health care organizations through reduction in maternal and infant hospitalizations. More work is needed to establish how costs and economic benefits are distributed among different types of organizations. Also, the optimum methods of delivering preconception care for women with diabetes need to be evaluated. Similar assessments should also be conducted for other forms of preconception care, including comprehensive care.

Local Boards of Health Characteristics Influencing Support for Health Department Accreditation

Background: Local boards of health (LBoHs) serve as the governance body for 71% of local health departments (LHDs). Purpose: To assess the impact of LBoH governance functions and other characteristics on the level of LBoH support of LHD accreditation. Methods: Data from 394 LHDs that participated in the 2015 Local Boards of Health Survey were used for computing summative scores for LBoHs for domains of taxonomy and performing logistic regression analyses in 2016. Results: Increased odds of an LBoH directing, encouraging, or supporting LHD accreditation activities were significantly associated with (a) a higher overall combined score measuring performance of governance functions and presence of other LBoH characteristics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05; P < .001); (b) a higher combined score for the Governance Functions subscale (AOR = 1.06; P < .01); (c) the “continuous improvement” governance function (AOR = 1.15; P < .001); and (d) characteristics and strengths such as board composition (eg, LBoH size, type of training, elected vs nonelected members), community engagement and input, and the absence of an elected official on the board (AOR = 1.14; P = .02). Conclusions: LBoHs are evenly split by thirds in their attention to Public Health Accreditation Board accreditation among the following categories: (a) encouraged or supported, (b) discussed but made no recommendations, and (c) did not discuss. This split might indicate that they are depending on the professional leadership of the LHD to make the decision or that there is a lack of awareness. The study findings have policy implications for both LBoHs and initiatives aimed at strengthening efforts to promote LHD accreditation.

Creating a Taxonomy of Local Boards of Health Based on Local Health Departments’ Perspectives

Objectives To develop a local board of health (LBoH) classification scheme and empirical definitions to provide a coherent framework for describing variation in the LBoHs. Methods This study is based on data from the 2015 Local Board of Health Survey, conducted among a nationally representative sample of local health department administrators, with 394 responses. The classification development consisted of the following steps: (1) theoretically guided initial domain development, (2) mapping of the survey variables to the proposed domains, (3) data reduction using principal component analysis and group consensus, and (4) scale development and testing for internal consistency. Results The final classification scheme included 60 items across 6 governance function domains and an additional domain-LBoH characteristics and strengths, such as meeting frequency, composition, and diversity of information sources. Application of this classification strongly supports the premise that LBoHs differ in their performance of governance functions and in other characteristics. Conclusions The LBoH taxonomy provides an empirically tested standardized tool for classifying LBoHs from the viewpoint of local health department administrators. Future studies can use this taxonomy to better characterize the impact of LBoHs.