Article

Obesity prevention and diabetes screening at local health departments.

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341-3727, USA.
American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.23). 08/2010; 100(8):1434-41. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.168831
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We assessed whether local health departments (LHDs) were conducting obesity prevention programs and diabetes screening programs, and we examined associations between LHD characteristics and whether they conducted these programs.
We used the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of 2300 LHDs nationwide. We used multivariate logistic regressions to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Approximately 56% of LHDs had obesity prevention programs, 51% had diabetes screening programs, and 34% had both. After controlling for other factors, we found that employing health educators was significantly associated with LHDs conducting obesity prevention programs (OR = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.54, 2.81) and diabetes screening programs (OR = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.23, 2.17). We also found that conducting chronic disease surveillance was significantly associated with LHDs conducting obesity prevention programs (OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.26, 2.20) and diabetes screening programs (OR = 2.44; 95% CI = 1.90, 3.15). LHDs with a higher burden of diabetes prevalence were more likely to conduct diabetes screening programs (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.11, 1.31) but not obesity prevention programs.
The presence of obesity prevention and diabetes screening programs was significantly associated with LHD structural capacity and general performance. However, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of both types of programs remain unknown.

1 Follower
 · 
144 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : To describe and compare the capacity of local health departments (LHDs) to perform 10 essential public health services (EPHS) for obesity control in 2005 and 2008, and explore factors associated with provision of these services. : The data for this study were drawn from the 2005 and 2008 National Profile of Local Health Department surveys, conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Data were analyzed in SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina). : The proportion of LHDs that reported that they do not provide any of the EPHS for obesity control decreased from 27.9% in 2005 to 17.0% in 2008. In both 2005 and 2008, the 2 most frequently provided EPHS for obesity control by LHDs were informing, educating, and empowering the people (EPHS 3) and linking people to needed personal health services (EPHS 7). The 2 least frequently provided services were enforcing laws and regulations (EPHS 6) and conducting research (EPHS 10). On average, LHDs provided 3.05 EPHS in 2005 and 3.69 EPHS in 2008. Multiple logistic regression results show that LHDs with larger jurisdiction population, with a local governance, and those that have completed a community health improvement plan were more likely to provide more of the EPHS for obesity (P < .05). : The provision of the 10 EPHS for obesity control by LHDs remains low. Local health departments need more assistance and resources to expand performance of EPHS for obesity control. Future studies are needed to evaluate and promote LHD capacity to deliver evidence-based strategies for obesity control in local communities.
    Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 01/2013; 19(1):53-61. DOI:10.1097/PHH.0b013e31824dcd81 · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Local health departments (LHDs) can play an important role in linking people to personal health services and ensuring the provision of health care when it is otherwise unavailable. However, the extent to which LHDs are involved in ensuring access to health care in its jurisdictions is not well known. To provide nationally representative estimates of LHD involvement in specific activities to ensure access to healthcare services and to assess their association with macro-environment/community and LHD capacity and process characteristics. Data used were from the 2010 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study, Area Resource Files, and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials' 2010 Profile of State Public Health Agencies Survey. Data were analyzed in 2012. Approximately 66.0% of LHDs conducted activities to ensure access to medical care, 45.9% to dental care, and 32.0% to behavioral health care. About 28% of LHDs had not conducted activities to ensure access to health care in their jurisdictions in 2010. LHDs with higher per capita expenditures and larger jurisdiction population sizes were more likely to provide access to care services (p <0.05). There is substantial variation in LHD engagement in activities to ensure access to care. Differences in LHD capacity and the needs of the communities in which they are located may account for this variation. Further research is needed to determine whether this variation is associated with adverse population health outcomes.
    American journal of preventive medicine 12/2013; 45(6):720-7. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.07.010 · 4.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust and valid approach to evaluate screening for diseases. Many in the diabetes research community have advocated sole reliance on RCTs for designing diabetes screening policies. However, the challenges of conducting RCTs of screening for type 2 diabetes may have been underappreciated. Discuss the key theoretical concepts and practical challenges of designing and conducting RCTs of diabetes screening. Narrative and critical review of the literature pertaining to the theory and practice of designing and conducting RCTs of diabetes screening. We present the theoretical basis of a diabetes screening trial, using concepts developed mainly in studies of cancer screening and illustrations from the Cambridge component of the Anglo Danish Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In peOple with screeN-detected diabetes in primary care (ADDITION-Cambridge), the only extant trial of diabetes screening. We examine design issues, including the appropriate trial question, choice of design, and duration of follow-up, and address aspects of trial implementation, including recruitment, randomization, endpoint determination, sample size requirements, and screening interval. The limited number of trials of diabetes screening did not permit us to illustrate many of the practical difficulties one encounters when implementing theoretical concepts. When diabetes screening trials are planned, we suggest careful consideration to potential areas of practical difficulty, especially the need for particularly large sample sizes and extended follow-up, and the choice of appropriate outcomes and screening intervals.
    Clinical Trials 01/2014; 11(3). DOI:10.1177/1740774513517062 · 1.94 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
4 Downloads
Available from