2015-2022年肯塔基州地方卫生部门PHAB认证状态下社区健康评估与社区健康改善计划比较分析

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Bradley A Firchow, Katie Boroughs, Joseph A Howard
{"title":"2015-2022年肯塔基州地方卫生部门PHAB认证状态下社区健康评估与社区健康改善计划比较分析","authors":"Bradley A Firchow, Katie Boroughs, Joseph A Howard","doi":"10.1097/PHH.0000000000002127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigates the variation in quality of community health assessments (CHAs) and community health improvement plans (CHIPs) between Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB)-accredited and unaccredited local health departments (LHDs) in Kentucky. Building upon prior research examining the quality of CHA/CHIPs among PHAB-accredited LHDs in Kentucky, this study sought to compare CHA/CHIP quality between PHAB-accredited and unaccredited LHDs in Kentucky.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Quality assessment of publicly available CHA/CHIP documents used criteria adapted from the study by Pennel et al. (Nonprofit hospitals approach to community health needs assessment. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(3):e103-e113. doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.302286). LHDs were ranked across 17 criteria on a 6-point scale to generate composite scores for report quality. A Welch's corrected unpaired t test was performed to assess the difference in report quality between accredited and unaccredited departments.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>PHAB-accredited and unaccredited LHDs in Kentucky. The study included publicly available CHA/CHIP reports generated by LHDs in Kentucky between 2015 and 2022.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Seventeen CHAs and CHIP documents from PHAB-accredited LHD. The study analyzed 17 publicly available CHA/CHIP reports from PHAB-accredited LHDs and 15 publicly available CHA/CHIP reports from unaccredited LHDs.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Quality scores were based on 17 evaluation criteria, including stakeholder involvement, data examination, plan feasibility, and LHD-hospital collaboration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study found significant variation in the quality of CHAs and CHIP documents across all LHDs. The highest criterion scores were for partner involvement, data examination, and plan feasibility. The lowest scores were for LHD-hospital collaboration, use of evidence-based strategies, and plan evaluation. No community variables significantly predicted overall report scores. The study found that accredited LHDs scored significantly higher than unaccredited LHDs on overall report quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The quality of CHAs and CHIP documents varies among Kentucky LHDs, highlighting the need for more robust guidance and standardized criteria, particularly for LHDs not yet pursuing accreditation. Strengthening hospital-LHD collaboration and focusing on evidence-based strategies can improve public health outcomes. High-quality CHA/CHIP reporting is essential for effective public health interventions and improved health outcomes. Enhancing CHA/CHIP processes through legislative changes, departmental guidance, and the pursuit of public health accreditation are promising avenues for improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":47855,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Community Health Assessments and Community Health Improvement Plans by PHAB Accreditation Status Among Local Health Departments in Kentucky, 2015-2022.\",\"authors\":\"Bradley A Firchow, Katie Boroughs, Joseph A Howard\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PHH.0000000000002127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigates the variation in quality of community health assessments (CHAs) and community health improvement plans (CHIPs) between Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB)-accredited and unaccredited local health departments (LHDs) in Kentucky. Building upon prior research examining the quality of CHA/CHIPs among PHAB-accredited LHDs in Kentucky, this study sought to compare CHA/CHIP quality between PHAB-accredited and unaccredited LHDs in Kentucky.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Quality assessment of publicly available CHA/CHIP documents used criteria adapted from the study by Pennel et al. (Nonprofit hospitals approach to community health needs assessment. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(3):e103-e113. doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.302286). LHDs were ranked across 17 criteria on a 6-point scale to generate composite scores for report quality. A Welch's corrected unpaired t test was performed to assess the difference in report quality between accredited and unaccredited departments.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>PHAB-accredited and unaccredited LHDs in Kentucky. The study included publicly available CHA/CHIP reports generated by LHDs in Kentucky between 2015 and 2022.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Seventeen CHAs and CHIP documents from PHAB-accredited LHD. The study analyzed 17 publicly available CHA/CHIP reports from PHAB-accredited LHDs and 15 publicly available CHA/CHIP reports from unaccredited LHDs.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Quality scores were based on 17 evaluation criteria, including stakeholder involvement, data examination, plan feasibility, and LHD-hospital collaboration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study found significant variation in the quality of CHAs and CHIP documents across all LHDs. The highest criterion scores were for partner involvement, data examination, and plan feasibility. The lowest scores were for LHD-hospital collaboration, use of evidence-based strategies, and plan evaluation. No community variables significantly predicted overall report scores. The study found that accredited LHDs scored significantly higher than unaccredited LHDs on overall report quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The quality of CHAs and CHIP documents varies among Kentucky LHDs, highlighting the need for more robust guidance and standardized criteria, particularly for LHDs not yet pursuing accreditation. Strengthening hospital-LHD collaboration and focusing on evidence-based strategies can improve public health outcomes. High-quality CHA/CHIP reporting is essential for effective public health interventions and improved health outcomes. Enhancing CHA/CHIP processes through legislative changes, departmental guidance, and the pursuit of public health accreditation are promising avenues for improvement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47855,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-13\",\"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.0000000000002127\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000002127","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

摘要

目的:研究肯塔基州公共卫生认可委员会(PHAB)认可和未认可的地方卫生部门(lhd)在社区卫生评估(CHAs)和社区卫生改善计划(CHIPs)质量方面的差异。基于先前对肯塔基州phab认证的lhd之间CHA/CHIPs质量的研究,本研究试图比较肯塔基州phab认证和未认证的lhd之间CHA/CHIP质量。设计:采用Pennel等人的研究(非营利医院社区卫生需求评估方法)改编的标准,对公开可用的CHA/CHIP文件进行质量评估。公共卫生杂志,2015;105(3):e103-e113。doi: 10.2105 / ajph.2014.302286)。lhd在17项标准中按6分制进行排名,以生成报告质量的综合分数。采用韦尔奇校正的非配对t检验来评估认证部门和未认证部门之间报告质量的差异。环境:肯塔基州phab认证和未认证的lhd。该研究包括肯塔基州lhd在2015年至2022年间生成的公开可用的CHA/CHIP报告。参与者:来自phab认证LHD的17份CHAs和CHIP文件。该研究分析了来自phab认证的lhd的17份公开的CHA/CHIP报告和来自未认证的lhd的15份公开的CHA/CHIP报告。主要结果测量:质量评分基于17个评价标准,包括利益相关者参与、数据检查、计划可行性和lhd -医院协作。结果:研究发现,在所有lhd中,CHAs和CHIP文件的质量存在显著差异。标准得分最高的是伴侣参与、数据检查和计划可行性。得分最低的是lhd -医院合作、循证策略的使用和计划评估。没有社区变量显著预测总体报告得分。研究发现,在整体报告质量方面,认证的lhd得分明显高于未认证的lhd。结论:在肯塔基州的lhd中,CHAs和CHIP文件的质量各不相同,这突出了需要更强有力的指导和标准化标准,特别是对于尚未获得认证的lhd。加强医院与卫生局的合作并注重循证战略,可改善公共卫生成果。高质量的CHA/CHIP报告对于有效的公共卫生干预和改善健康结果至关重要。通过立法改革、部门指导和追求公共卫生认证来加强CHA/CHIP流程是有希望的改进途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Community Health Assessments and Community Health Improvement Plans by PHAB Accreditation Status Among Local Health Departments in Kentucky, 2015-2022.

Objective: This study investigates the variation in quality of community health assessments (CHAs) and community health improvement plans (CHIPs) between Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB)-accredited and unaccredited local health departments (LHDs) in Kentucky. Building upon prior research examining the quality of CHA/CHIPs among PHAB-accredited LHDs in Kentucky, this study sought to compare CHA/CHIP quality between PHAB-accredited and unaccredited LHDs in Kentucky.

Design: Quality assessment of publicly available CHA/CHIP documents used criteria adapted from the study by Pennel et al. (Nonprofit hospitals approach to community health needs assessment. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(3):e103-e113. doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.302286). LHDs were ranked across 17 criteria on a 6-point scale to generate composite scores for report quality. A Welch's corrected unpaired t test was performed to assess the difference in report quality between accredited and unaccredited departments.

Setting: PHAB-accredited and unaccredited LHDs in Kentucky. The study included publicly available CHA/CHIP reports generated by LHDs in Kentucky between 2015 and 2022.

Participants: Seventeen CHAs and CHIP documents from PHAB-accredited LHD. The study analyzed 17 publicly available CHA/CHIP reports from PHAB-accredited LHDs and 15 publicly available CHA/CHIP reports from unaccredited LHDs.

Main outcome measures: Quality scores were based on 17 evaluation criteria, including stakeholder involvement, data examination, plan feasibility, and LHD-hospital collaboration.

Results: The study found significant variation in the quality of CHAs and CHIP documents across all LHDs. The highest criterion scores were for partner involvement, data examination, and plan feasibility. The lowest scores were for LHD-hospital collaboration, use of evidence-based strategies, and plan evaluation. No community variables significantly predicted overall report scores. The study found that accredited LHDs scored significantly higher than unaccredited LHDs on overall report quality.

Conclusions: The quality of CHAs and CHIP documents varies among Kentucky LHDs, highlighting the need for more robust guidance and standardized criteria, particularly for LHDs not yet pursuing accreditation. Strengthening hospital-LHD collaboration and focusing on evidence-based strategies can improve public health outcomes. High-quality CHA/CHIP reporting is essential for effective public health interventions and improved health outcomes. Enhancing CHA/CHIP processes through legislative changes, departmental guidance, and the pursuit of public health accreditation are promising avenues for improvement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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