Evaluating an Academic Health Department During a Pandemic: Lessons Learned.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Pamela Xaverius, Darcell Scharff, Spring Schmidt, Jeanine Arrighi, Alex Morris, Caroline Merck, Shreya Jain, Jilliam Root, Meghan Weihmuller
{"title":"Evaluating an Academic Health Department During a Pandemic: Lessons Learned.","authors":"Pamela Xaverius, Darcell Scharff, Spring Schmidt, Jeanine Arrighi, Alex Morris, Caroline Merck, Shreya Jain, Jilliam Root, Meghan Weihmuller","doi":"10.1353/cpr.2026.a993199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Academic Health Departments (AHDs) are the mutually beneficial relationship between the study and practice of public health. Few studies have evaluated both the necessary infrastructure and how to best implement an AHD.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study evaluated the St. Louis AHD in its first 3 years of development, using both the using the Coalition Effectiveness Inventory (CEI: infrastructure) and Collaboration Factors Inventory (CFI: implementation).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective cross-sectional study evaluating the formal initiation of an AHD between two local health departments and an accredited school of public health. Surveys were electronically distributed to staff, faculty and students at each of the three sites. The main outcome measures included Level of Engagement, CFI and CEI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was significantly more collaboration after implementation of the AHD (30% vs. 16%; P = 0.01). The 63 participants who completed the CEI Time 1 (M = 2.01) were compared to the 53 participants who completed the CEI Time 2 (M = 2.15) and there was no significant difference in composite CEI scores, t (113.988) = -1.10, p = 0.28. One CEI subscale, broad-based-involvement, was found to be significantly higher in Time 2, t(113.654) = -2.22, p = 0.05. The 63 participants who completed the CFI Time 1 (M = 3.57) were compared to the 53 participants who completed the CFI Time 2 (M = 3.27). There was a significant decrease in the composite CFI score, t (113.766) = 2.79, p = 0.05.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AHD development is strengthened through leadership and formalized organizational infrastructure.</p>","PeriodicalId":46970,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Community Health Partnerships-Research Education and Action","volume":"20 2","pages":"293-302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Community Health Partnerships-Research Education and Action","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2026.a993199","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Academic Health Departments (AHDs) are the mutually beneficial relationship between the study and practice of public health. Few studies have evaluated both the necessary infrastructure and how to best implement an AHD.

Objective: This study evaluated the St. Louis AHD in its first 3 years of development, using both the using the Coalition Effectiveness Inventory (CEI: infrastructure) and Collaboration Factors Inventory (CFI: implementation).

Methods: This was a prospective cross-sectional study evaluating the formal initiation of an AHD between two local health departments and an accredited school of public health. Surveys were electronically distributed to staff, faculty and students at each of the three sites. The main outcome measures included Level of Engagement, CFI and CEI.

Results: There was significantly more collaboration after implementation of the AHD (30% vs. 16%; P = 0.01). The 63 participants who completed the CEI Time 1 (M = 2.01) were compared to the 53 participants who completed the CEI Time 2 (M = 2.15) and there was no significant difference in composite CEI scores, t (113.988) = -1.10, p = 0.28. One CEI subscale, broad-based-involvement, was found to be significantly higher in Time 2, t(113.654) = -2.22, p = 0.05. The 63 participants who completed the CFI Time 1 (M = 3.57) were compared to the 53 participants who completed the CFI Time 2 (M = 3.27). There was a significant decrease in the composite CFI score, t (113.766) = 2.79, p = 0.05.

Conclusions: AHD development is strengthened through leadership and formalized organizational infrastructure.

在大流行期间评估学术卫生部门:吸取的教训。
背景:学术卫生部门(AHDs)是公共卫生研究与实践的互惠关系。很少有研究评估必要的基础设施和如何最好地实施AHD。目的:本研究使用联盟有效性量表(CEI:基础设施)和协作因素量表(CFI:实施)对圣路易斯AHD发展的前3年进行了评估。方法:这是一项前瞻性横断面研究,评估两个地方卫生部门和一所认可的公共卫生学校之间正式启动AHD。调查以电子方式分发给三个地点的工作人员、教师和学生。主要结果测量包括参与水平、CFI和CEI。结果:实施AHD后,协作率显著提高(30% vs. 16%; P = 0.01)。完成CEI时间1的63名参与者(M = 2.01)与完成CEI时间2的53名参与者(M = 2.15)相比,CEI综合得分无显著差异,t (113.988) = -1.10, p = 0.28。CEI的一个分量表,广泛性受累,在时间2时显著升高,t(113.654) = -2.22, p = 0.05。完成CFI时间1的63名参与者(M = 3.57)与完成CFI时间2的53名参与者(M = 3.27)进行比较。CFI综合评分显著降低,t (113.766) = 2.79, p = 0.05。结论:AHD的发展通过领导和正式的组织基础设施得到加强。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书