ArticleJournal of public health management and practice : JPHMP
Examining the Priorities of Local Health Departments in California: A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrioritization is an essential task of local health departments (LHDs). We examined the alignment of priorities reported in Community Health Needs Assessments (CHNA) with priorities in the Community Health Improvement Plans (CHIP). We report factors that influence the choice of priorities and the alignment of the priorities.
designA mixed method study design.
settingCalifornia.
participantsCHNA 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsLHDs 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.