Examining the Priorities of Local Health Departments in California: A Mixed Methods Study.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Nimrat K Sandhu, Ana Lucia Mendoza, Mamata Pokhrel, Melissa Renteria, Kim Bristow, Paul M Brown
{"title":"Examining the Priorities of Local Health Departments in California: A Mixed Methods Study.","authors":"Nimrat K Sandhu, Ana Lucia Mendoza, Mamata Pokhrel, Melissa Renteria, Kim Bristow, Paul M Brown","doi":"10.1097/PHH.0000000000002082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Prioritization is an essential task of local health departments (LHDs). We examined the alignment of priorities reported in Community Health Needs Assessments (CHNA) priorities align with priorities in the Community Health Improvement Plans (CHIP). We report factors that influence the choice of priorities and the alignment of the priorities.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixed method study design.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>California.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>CHNA and CHIP documents were sought for all 58 counties. Interviews were conducted with 19 state and local public health officials.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The priorities in the CHNA and the CHIP were coded as i) only in the CHNA, ii) only in the CHIP, or iii) in both the CHNA and the CHIP. The interviewees were asked to share their experiences related to issue prioritization and decision-making in public health agencies. The interviews were coded and thematically analyzed to identify barriers and facilitators of the prioritization process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The alignment between the needs prioritized in CHNA and the priorities targeted in CHIP was 35%. The interviews identify reasons for the misalignment, including a need to include priorities in the CHNA even though LHDs are not able to address them, political factors that influence the selection of priorities, and a lack of discretionary funding or capacity/expertise within the agency or its community partners to respond to the needs identified. The lack of discretionary funding was particularly acute for smaller (rural) LHDs (CMSP) and resulted in their often having to focus on priorities where there was state or federal funding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LHDs face numerous challenges in aligning the priorities reported in the CHNA and the priorities they focus upon in the CHIP. LHDs should consider using a formal, transparent, and evidence-based approach to setting aligning. Future research should focus on developing a formal decision-making process that is appropriate for local public health decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":47855,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000002082","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Prioritization is an essential task of local health departments (LHDs). We examined the alignment of priorities reported in Community Health Needs Assessments (CHNA) priorities align with priorities in the Community Health Improvement Plans (CHIP). We report factors that influence the choice of priorities and the alignment of the priorities.

Design: A mixed method study design.

Setting: California.

Participants: CHNA and CHIP documents were sought for all 58 counties. Interviews were conducted with 19 state and local public health officials.

Outcome measures: The priorities in the CHNA and the CHIP were coded as i) only in the CHNA, ii) only in the CHIP, or iii) in both the CHNA and the CHIP. The interviewees were asked to share their experiences related to issue prioritization and decision-making in public health agencies. The interviews were coded and thematically analyzed to identify barriers and facilitators of the prioritization process.

Results: The alignment between the needs prioritized in CHNA and the priorities targeted in CHIP was 35%. The interviews identify reasons for the misalignment, including a need to include priorities in the CHNA even though LHDs are not able to address them, political factors that influence the selection of priorities, and a lack of discretionary funding or capacity/expertise within the agency or its community partners to respond to the needs identified. The lack of discretionary funding was particularly acute for smaller (rural) LHDs (CMSP) and resulted in their often having to focus on priorities where there was state or federal funding.

Conclusions: LHDs face numerous challenges in aligning the priorities reported in the CHNA and the priorities they focus upon in the CHIP. LHDs should consider using a formal, transparent, and evidence-based approach to setting aligning. Future research should focus on developing a formal decision-making process that is appropriate for local public health decision-making.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
287
期刊介绍: Journal of Public Health Management and Practice publishes articles which focus on evidence based public health practice and research. The journal is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed publication guided by a multidisciplinary editorial board of administrators, practitioners and scientists. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice publishes in a wide range of population health topics including research to practice; emergency preparedness; bioterrorism; infectious disease surveillance; environmental health; community health assessment, chronic disease prevention and health promotion, and academic-practice linkages.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信