Strategic and Performance Planning in US Local Health Departments: A Comparative Analysis of Strategic, Community Health Improvement, and Quality Improvement Plans.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jacquelyn Jacobs, Britney Smart, Maureen Benjamins, Jesus Valencia, Anna Clayton, Krishna Patel, Joi Lee, Tim McCall, Ashley Edmiston
{"title":"Strategic and Performance Planning in US Local Health Departments: A Comparative Analysis of Strategic, Community Health Improvement, and Quality Improvement Plans.","authors":"Jacquelyn Jacobs, Britney Smart, Maureen Benjamins, Jesus Valencia, Anna Clayton, Krishna Patel, Joi Lee, Tim McCall, Ashley Edmiston","doi":"10.1097/PHH.0000000000002152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Local health departments (LHDs) are a critical component of the US public health infrastructure. To guide their work and evaluate progress, LHDs develop and maintain a range of planning documents, including strategic plans (SPs), community health improvement plans (CHIPs), and quality improvement plans (QIPs).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this study was to provide information on current LHD practices related to strategic planning and performance improvement.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The study used an environmental scan and document analysis of a sample of 93 plans from 31 LHDs to explore commonalities and differences within the strategies, goals, and priorities of SPs, CHIPs, and QIPs. Framework analysis was used, involving initial document review, development of a coding framework, and applying this framework to all documents iteratively. To ensure reliability, 19% of documents were double-coded, with discrepancies resolved through team discussions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 31 LHDs included in this analysis, most were urban (89.7%) and medium-sized (64.5%), with a large percentage from the Midwest (41.9%). The analysis revealed that most LHDs used established frameworks to develop plans and identify priority areas. Frequently listed priority areas included behavioral health, social determinants of health, access to care, chronic disease, and nutrition and physical activity. Frequently listed strategies to improve priority areas included building collaborations and partnerships, advocating for policy change, increasing access to services and resources, and increasing awareness of issues. While CHIPs frequently incorporated social determinants of health as part of a guiding framework, QIPs focused on fostering continuous quality improvement. Differences were documented based on jurisdiction size, degree of rurality, and region.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study identified a widespread commitment to develop plans using established frameworks, community engagement, and data-driven decision-making, while also highlighting the diverse needs and capacities of LHDs in addressing public health challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":47855,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","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.0000000000002152","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

Context: Local health departments (LHDs) are a critical component of the US public health infrastructure. To guide their work and evaluate progress, LHDs develop and maintain a range of planning documents, including strategic plans (SPs), community health improvement plans (CHIPs), and quality improvement plans (QIPs).

Objective: The goal of this study was to provide information on current LHD practices related to strategic planning and performance improvement.

Design: The study used an environmental scan and document analysis of a sample of 93 plans from 31 LHDs to explore commonalities and differences within the strategies, goals, and priorities of SPs, CHIPs, and QIPs. Framework analysis was used, involving initial document review, development of a coding framework, and applying this framework to all documents iteratively. To ensure reliability, 19% of documents were double-coded, with discrepancies resolved through team discussions.

Results: Of the 31 LHDs included in this analysis, most were urban (89.7%) and medium-sized (64.5%), with a large percentage from the Midwest (41.9%). The analysis revealed that most LHDs used established frameworks to develop plans and identify priority areas. Frequently listed priority areas included behavioral health, social determinants of health, access to care, chronic disease, and nutrition and physical activity. Frequently listed strategies to improve priority areas included building collaborations and partnerships, advocating for policy change, increasing access to services and resources, and increasing awareness of issues. While CHIPs frequently incorporated social determinants of health as part of a guiding framework, QIPs focused on fostering continuous quality improvement. Differences were documented based on jurisdiction size, degree of rurality, and region.

Conclusions: The study identified a widespread commitment to develop plans using established frameworks, community engagement, and data-driven decision-making, while also highlighting the diverse needs and capacities of LHDs in addressing public health challenges.

美国地方卫生部门的战略和绩效规划:战略、社区卫生改善和质量改善计划的比较分析。
背景:地方卫生部门(lhd)是美国公共卫生基础设施的重要组成部分。为了指导他们的工作和评估进展,社区健康专员制定和维护一系列规划文件,包括战略计划、社区健康改善计划和质量改善计划。目的:本研究的目的是提供与战略规划和绩效改进有关的当前LHD实践的信息。设计:本研究对来自31个lhd的93个计划样本进行了环境扫描和文件分析,以探索SPs、chip和qip的战略、目标和优先级中的共性和差异。使用框架分析,包括最初的文档审查,编码框架的开发,并迭代地将该框架应用于所有文档。为了确保可靠性,19%的文档是双重编码的,差异通过团队讨论解决。结果:在本分析中包括的31个lhd中,大多数是城市(89.7%)和中型(64.5%),其中中西部地区的比例很大(41.9%)。分析显示,大多数lhd使用既定框架来制定计划和确定优先领域。经常列出的优先领域包括行为健康、健康的社会决定因素、获得保健、慢性病以及营养和体育活动。经常列出的改善优先领域的战略包括建立合作和伙伴关系、倡导政策变革、增加获得服务和资源的机会以及提高对问题的认识。chip经常将健康的社会决定因素作为指导框架的一部分,而QIPs则侧重于促进持续的质量改进。根据管辖权大小、农村程度和地区的不同,记录了差异。结论:该研究确定了利用既定框架、社区参与和数据驱动型决策制定计划的广泛承诺,同时还强调了低收入国家在应对公共卫生挑战方面的不同需求和能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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