Progress Toward the Healthy People 2010 Goals and Objectives

National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, USA.
Annual Review of Public Health (Impact Factor: 6.47). 04/2010; 31(1):271-81 4 p folliwng 281. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103613
Source: PubMed


Healthy People 2010 is a comprehensive framework for improving the health of Americans, built on the foundation of several decades of predecessor initiatives. Its two overarching goals, to "[i]ncrease the quality and years of healthy life" and "[e]liminate health disparities," subsume 28 focus areas and comprise 955 objectives and subobjectives. This review evaluates progress toward meeting the Healthy People 2010 program's challenging agenda in the context of leading health indicator (LHI) measures, developed by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), augmented by additional objectives for a total of 31 measures. Our evaluation of progress includes analysis of changes in objective values, including progress toward Healthy People 2010 targets, where appropriate, and analysis of changes in disparities. The Healthy People 2010 LHI measures suggest that although some progress has been made, there is much work to be done toward the Healthy People 2010 targets and both overarching goals.

7 Reads
  • Source
    • "In comparison to Caucasians, African Americans and Latinos experience disproportionately greater morbidity and mortality across many diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011; National Center for Health Statistics, 2010; Walsemann et al., 2008). Despite recent improvements in the health of the general population (National Center for Health Statistics, 2010; Sondik et al., 2010), these improvements have not impacted all racial/ethnic groups equally; there are stable or increasing prevalence rates for chronic and life-threatening diseases among many minority "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Racial/ethnic minorities experience persistent health disparities due in part to their exposure to chronic SES and psychosocial risk. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and its hormonal end product, cortisol, are believed to mediate the associations between chronic stress and poor health. In this study, racial/ethnic differences in diurnal salivary cortisol rhythms in 179 preadolescent youths and the contributing roles of SES risk, psychosocial risk, perceived discrimination, harsh parenting, and parental monitoring were examined. The analyses revealed racial/ethnic differences in diurnal cortisol rhythms, with African Americans having significantly flatter morning-to-evening cortisol slopes than Caucasians and with Latinos having significantly lower evening cortisol levels than Caucasians. Greater psychosocial risk and less parental monitoring were associated with flatter cortisol slopes. Racial/ethnic differences on the cortisol measures persisted when controlling for SES, psychosocial risk, and parenting quality. The need to assess chronic risk across the lifespan and disentangle possible genetic from environmental contributors is discussed.
    Hormones and Behavior 03/2012; 61(5):661-8. DOI:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.02.025 · 4.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The specific aims of the program are: 1) to provide an infrastructure for ongoing and future health sciences research; 2) to improve monitoring and enable promotion of health for all Wisconsin residents; and 3) to facilitate innovative and transformational population health research. The program creates a basis for research about population health outcomes and determinants, thus helping monitor the state and the national Healthy People objectives [5]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence-based public health requires the existence of reliable information systems for priority setting and evaluation of interventions. Existing data systems in the United States are either too crude (e.g., vital statistics), rely on administrative data (e.g., Medicare) or, because of their national scope (e.g., NHANES), lack the discriminatory power to assess specific needs and to evaluate community health activities at the state and local level. This manuscript describes the rationale and methods of the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin (SHOW), a novel infrastructure for population health research. The program consists of a series of independent annual surveys gathering health-related data on representative samples of state residents and communities. Two-stage cluster sampling is used to select households and recruit approximately 800-1,000 adult participants (21-74 years old) each year. Recruitment and initial interviews are done at the household; additional interviews and physical exams are conducted at permanent or mobile examination centers. Individual survey data include physical, mental, and oral health history, health literacy, demographics, behavioral, lifestyle, occupational, and household characteristics as well as health care access and utilization. The physical exam includes blood pressure, anthropometry, bioimpedance, spirometry, urine collection and blood draws. Serum, plasma, and buffy coats (for DNA extraction) are stored in a biorepository for future studies. Every household is geocoded for linkage with existing contextual data including community level measures of the social and physical environment; local neighborhood characteristics are also recorded using an audit tool. Participants are re-contacted bi-annually by phone for health history updates. SHOW generates data to assess health disparities across state communities as well as trends on prevalence of health outcomes and determinants. SHOW also serves as a platform for ancillary epidemiologic studies and for studies to evaluate the effect of community-specific interventions. It addresses key gaps in our current data resources and increases capacity for etiologic, applied and translational population health research. It is hoped that this program will serve as a model to better support evidence-based public health, facilitate intervention evaluation research, and ultimately help improve health throughout the state and nation.
    BMC Public Health 12/2010; 10(1):785. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-10-785 · 2.26 Impact Factor
  • Source

Show more

Similar Publications