Background Much of the disease burden in the United States is preventable through application of existing knowledge. State-level public health practitioners are in ideal positions to affect programs and policies related to chronic disease, but the extent to which mis-implementation occurring with these programs is largely unknown. Mis-implementation refers to ending effective programs and policies prematurely or continuing ineffective ones. Methods A 2018 comprehensive survey assessing the extent of mis-implementation and multi-level influences on mis-implementation was reported by state health departments (SHDs). Questions were developed from previous literature. Surveys were emailed to randomly selected SHD employees across the Unites States. Spearman's correlation and multinomial logistic regression were used to assess factors in mis-implementation. Results Half (50.7%) of respondents were chronic disease program managers or unit directors. Forty nine percent reported that programs their SHD oversees sometimes, often or always continued ineffective programs. Over 50% also reported that their SHD sometimes or often ended effective programs. The data suggest the strongest correlates and predictors of mis-implementation were at the organizational level. For example, the number of organizational layers impeded decision-making was significant for both continuing ineffective programs (OR=4.70; 95% CI=2.20, 10.04) and ending effective programs (OR=3.23; 95% CI=1.61, 7.40). Conclusion The data suggest that changing certain agency practices may help in minimizing the occurrence of mis-implementation. Further research should focus on adding context to these issues and helping agencies engage in appropriate decision-making. Greater attention to mis-implementation should lead to greater use of effective interventions and more efficient expenditure of resources, ultimately to improve health outcomes.

/pdf/patterns-and-correlates-of-mis-implementation-in-state-535zi55zma.pdf

Patterns and correlates of mis-implementation in state chronic disease public health practice in the United States.

Introduction The Community Guide (Guide) is a user-friendly, systematic review system that provides information on evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in public health practice. Little is known about what predicts Guide awareness and use in state health departments (SHDs) and local health departments (LHDs). Methods We pooled data from 3 surveys (administered in 2016, 2017, and 2018) to employees in chronic disease programs at SHDs and LHDs. Participants (n = 1,039) represented all 50 states. The surveys asked about department practices and individual, organizational, and external factors related to decisions about EBIs. We used χ2 tests of independence for analyses. Results Eighty-one percent (n = 498) of SHD and 54% (n = 198) of LHD respondents reported their agency uses the Guide. Additionally, 13% of SHD participants reported not being aware of the Guide. Significant relationships were found between reporting using the Guide and academic collaboration, population size, rated importance of forming partnerships, and accreditation. Conclusion Awareness and use of the Guide in LHD and SHD chronic disease programs is widespread. Awareness of the Guide can be vital to implementation practice, because it enhances implementation of EBI practices. However, awareness of the Guide alone is likely not enough for health departments to implement EBIs. Changes at the organizational level, including sharing information about the Guide and providing training on how to best use it, may increase its awareness and use.

/pdf/use-and-awareness-of-the-community-guide-in-state-and-local-37w47vti5m.pdf

Use and Awareness of The Community Guide in State and Local Health Department Chronic Disease Programs.

Introduction The dissemination of evidence-based interventions (i.e., programs, practices, and policies) is a core function of US state health departments (SHDs). However, interventions are originally designed and tested with a specific population and context. Hence, adapting the intervention to meet the real-world circumstances and population's needs can increase the likelihood of achieving the expected health outcomes for the target population from the implemented intervention. This study identified how SHD employees decide to adapt public health programs and what influences decisions on how to adapt them. Materials and methods SHD employees (n = 45) were interviewed using a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Telephone interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were consensus-coded and themes were identified using thematic analysis. Several themes aligned with the Model for Adaptation Design and Impact. Results Data, outcomes, and health department evaluations influenced decisions to adapt a program (pre-adaptation), and reasons to adapt a program included organizational and sociopolitical contextual factors. SHD middle-level managers, program managers and staff, and local agencies were involved in the decisions to adapt the programs. Finally, the goals for adapting a program included enhancing effectiveness/outcomes, reach and satisfaction with the program; funding; and partner engagement. After SHD employees decided to adapt a program, data and evidence guided the changes. Program staff and evaluators were engaged in the adaptation process. Program managers consulted partners to gather ideas on how best to adapt a program based on partners' experiences implementing the program and obtaining community input. Lastly, program managers also received input on adapting content and context from coalition meetings and periodic technical assistance calls. Discussion The findings related to decisions to adapt public health programs provide practitioners with considerations for adapting them. Findings reaffirm the importance of promoting public health competencies in program evaluation and adaptation, as well as systematically documenting and evaluating the adaptation processes. In addition, the themes could be studied in future research as mechanisms, mediators, and moderators to implementation outcomes.

/pdf/program-adaptation-by-health-departments-fcq7sic7.pdf

Program adaptation by health departments

Mis-implementation, the inappropriate continuation of programs or policies that are not evidence-based or the inappropriate termination of evidence-based programs and policies, can lead to the inefficient use of scarce resources in public health agencies and decrease the ability of these agencies to deliver effective programs and improve population health. Little is known about why mis-implementation occurs, which is needed to understand how to address it. This study sought to understand the state health department practitioners' perspectives about what makes programs ineffective and the reasons why ineffective programs continue.Eight state health departments (SHDs) were selected to participate in telephone-administered qualitative interviews about decision-making around ending or continuing programs. States were selected based on geographic representation and on their level of mis-implementation (low and high) categorized from our previous national survey. Forty-four SHD chronic disease staff participated in interviews, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were consensus coded, and themes were identified and summarized. This paper presents two sets of themes, related to (1) what makes a program ineffective and (2) why ineffective programs continue to be implemented according to SHD staff.Participants considered programs ineffective if they were not evidence-based or if they did not fit well within the population; could not be implemented well due to program restraints or a lack of staff time and resources; did not reach those who could most benefit from the program; or did not show the expected program outcomes through evaluation. Practitioners described several reasons why ineffective programs continued to be implemented, including concerns about damaging the relationships with partner organizations, the presence of program champions, agency capacity, and funding restrictions.The continued implementation of ineffective programs occurs due to a number of interrelated organizational, relational, human resources, and economic factors. Efforts should focus on preventing mis-implementation since it limits public health agencies' ability to conduct evidence-based public health, implement evidence-based programs effectively, and reduce the high burden of chronic diseases. The use of evidence-based decision-making in public health agencies and supporting adaptation of programs to improve their fit may prevent mis-implementation. Future work should identify effective strategies to reduce mis-implementation, which can optimize public health practice and improve population health. 

https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s43058-021-00252-4

“It’s good to feel like you’re doing something”: a qualitative study examining state health department employees’ views on why ineffective programs continue to be implemented in the USA

Context: Strengthening the national public health infrastructure is crucial to ensure provision of necessary public health services in all jurisdictions. Public health agencies and their governing bodies need an evidence-based understanding of workforces' capabilities to operationalize this effort. Program: The Capabilities Opportunities Assessment Tool for the Public Health Workforce (COAT-PH) is an assessment of workforce foundational capabilities (FCs), based on the Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS) framework. The COAT-PH provides data on employees' capabilities to health departments to help them improve and operationalize the FPHS. Implementation: This article describes the development and pilot testing of the COAT-PH in a convenience sample of 8 health departments in Texas of various sizes and accreditation statuses. Participating leadership teams were provided easily interpretable reports to deliver clear evidence of division and organization-level workforce capability gaps and strengths. Follow-up semistructured interviews were conducted with leaders to capture insights into the tool and the usefulness of the findings. Evaluation: Eighty-eight percent of pilot health departments reported successfully appraising employee capability deficits, and 83% of small and medium health departments successfully assessed division or organizational FC strengths and gaps. All participating departments identified ways they could use their findings in future improvement efforts. Instrument psychometrics included the Cronbach α of internal reliability using a small test-retest sample (n = 6) of 0.956. Item test-retest reliability using Cohen's κ revealed 89% of items demonstrated at least slight reliability and 43% demonstrated moderate to substantial reliability. Content validity was established through review by 15 subject matter experts in the field of public health. Discussion: To provide the FPHS, health department leadership teams need a strong, prepared workforce and an effective method to demonstrate employee capabilities and provide evidence of health department workforce strengths and gaps to their governing bodies in the form of data that are clear and easy to understand. Early results demonstrated the usefulness of the COAT-PH in this effort.

A Strategy for Strengthening: Implementation of the Capabilities Opportunities Assessment Tool for the Public Health Workforce


 Background

Public health agencies are increasingly concerned with ensuring they are maximizing limited resources by delivering effective programs to enhance population-level health outcomes. Preventing mis-implementation is necessary to sustain public health efforts and resources needed to improve health and well-being. Because executive management is responsible for making decisions such as approving or disapproving the continuance of a program, it is important to understand the attributes of public health leaders in preventing program mis-implementation. The purpose of this paper is to identify the important qualities of leadership in preventing the mis-implementation of public health programs.
Methods

In Spring 2019, we selected eight state health departments (SHD) to participate in qualitative interviews on decision making around ending or continuing programs. Forty-four SHD chronic disease employees were interviewed via phone, audio-recorded, and the conversations transcribed verbatim. All transcripts were consensus coded, and themes were identified and summarized. This analysis focused on themes related to leadership.
Results

Participants were program managers or section directors who had on average worked 11 years at their agency and 15 years in public health. The following themes emerged from their interviews regarding the important leadership attributes to prevent mis-implementation: (1) engagement, use of quality improvement, and being adaptive; (2) transparent and bidirectional communication; and (3) ability to navigate political influences.
Conclusion

This first of its kind study showed the close inter-relationship between mis-implementation and leadership. Increased attention to public health leader attributes can help to reduce mis-implementation in public health practice and lead to more effective and efficient use of limited resources. A better understanding of those attributes can provide further direction to future areas of attention and capacity building among current and future public health practitioners. Future research should incorporate a mixed-methods approach to more comprehensively understand the relationships of leaders and practitioners.

/pdf/leading-the-way-qualities-of-leaders-in-preventing-mis-1eegrwmnxs.pdf

Leading the way: Qualities of leaders in preventing mis-implementation of public health programs

Public health agencies are increasingly concerned with ensuring that they are maximizing limited resources by delivering effective programs to enhance population-level health outcomes. Preventing mis-implementation (ending effective activities prematurely or continuing ineffective ones) is necessary to sustain public health efforts and resources needed to improve health and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to identify the important qualities of leadership in preventing mis-implementation of public health programs. In 2019, 45 state health department chronic disease employees were interviewed via phone and audio-recorded, and the conversations were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis focused on items related to mis-implementation and the manners in which leadership were involved in continuing ineffective programs. Final themes were based on a Public Health Leadership Competency Framework. The following themes emerged from their interviews regarding the important leadership competencies to prevent mis-implementation: '(1) leadership and communication; (2) collaborative leadership (3) leadership to adapt programs; (4) leadership and organizational learning and development; and (5) political leadership'. This first of its kind study showed the close interrelationship between mis-implementation and leadership. Increased attention to public health leader competencies might help to reduce mis-implementation in public health practice and lead to more effective and efficient use of limited resources.

Leading the way: competencies of leadership to prevent mis-implementation of public health programs.

OBJECTIVE To assess the association between evidence-based decision making, including implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), with accreditation of state health departments through the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). DESIGN This was a cross-sectional, electronic survey of state health department practitioners. We utilized a survey instrument focused on evidence-based public health, de-implementation, and sustainability of public health programs. Survey questions were organized into 6 domains: (1) demographic information; (2) individual-level skills; (3) decision making on programs ending; (4) decision making on programs continuing; (5) organization/agency capacity; and (6) external influences. PARTICIPANTS The targeted practitioners were randomly selected from the 3000-person membership of National Association of Chronic Disease Directors and program manager lists from key Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-supported programs in cancer and cancer risk factors. The final target audience for the survey totaled 1329 practitioners, representing all 50 states. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) The main outcome measures included the strength of association between a state's PHAB accreditation status and variables related to evidence-based public health and use of EBIs that fell within the individual participant skills, organization/agency capacity, and external influences domains. RESULTS We received 643 valid responses (response rate = 48.4%), representing all 50 states, with 35 states being PHAB accredited. There was a statistically significant association between PHAB accreditation and state health department use of quality improvement processes (P = .002), leadership plans to implement EBIs (P = .009), and leadership reactions to EBI implementation issues (P = .004). Respondents from PHAB-accredited states were significantly more likely than participants from nonaccredited states to report greater engagement with legislators and governors regarding EBIs and 14% less likely to report the inappropriate termination of programs in their work unit (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS The importance of accreditation relates to both internally focused functions and externally focused activities, especially regarding policy-related impact.

The Association Between Evidence-Based Decision Making and Accreditation of State Health Departments.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Romario Smith

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

“It’s good to feel like you’re doing something”: a qualitative study examining state health department employees’ views on why ineffective programs continue to be implemented in the USA

Leading the way: Qualities of leaders in preventing mis-implementation of public health programs

Leading the way: competencies of leadership to prevent mis-implementation of public health programs.

The Association Between Evidence-Based Decision Making and Accreditation of State Health Departments.