Availability of data to measure disparities in leading health indicators at the state and local levels.
ABSTRACT Healthy People 2010 identifies the elimination of health disparities as a critical national goal. The article analyzes the availability of state and local data to support this work.
We assessed data availability for the 10 leading health indicators (LHIs), comprising a set of 26 measures. Our analysis is based on a mid-2007 review of federal and state Web sites.
Federal data sources allow aggregate state estimates for 24 LHI measures, although some either are not available for all states or vary from the federal definition. National sources capture some but not all of the subgroup characteristics, defined as national disparities priorities. Limited sample size is a barrier to generating state estimates for specific subgroups, and data by geographic subdivision within a state are often lacking. States also vary in how aggressively they use disparities data or make them available externally.
Federal leadership has been critical to state capacity to assess LHI disparities. Although some relevant state-level disparities data exist, major gaps remain, local estimates are limited, and some states make better use of the data than others. Continued federal leadership and support is critical to states' abilities to address Healthy People 2010's disparities goal.
SourceAvailable from: Snehal N Shah[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To address health disparities, local health departments need high-resolution data on subpopulations and geographic regions, but the quality and availability of these data are often suboptimal. The Boston Public Health Commission and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health faced challenges in acquiring and using community-level data essential for the design and implementation of programs that can improve the health of those who have social or economic disadvantages. To overcome these challenges, both agencies used practical and innovative strategies for data management and analysis, including augmentation of existing population surveys, the use of combined data sets, and the generation of small-area estimates. These and other strategies show how community-level health data can be analyzed, expanded, and integrated into existing public health surveillance and program infrastructure to inform jurisdictional planning and tailoring of interventions aimed at achieving optimal health for all members of a community.Preventing chronic disease 09/2014; 11:E159. DOI:10.5888/pcd11.130440 · 1.96 Impact Factor
Public Health Reports 09/2013; 128(5):354-9. · 1.64 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is high demand for local-level population health data. A national system of state and local data collection would help improve both population health and health care delivery. The primary source of state-level population health data for adults is the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. However, many states need data on children and adolescents, racial and ethnic subpopulations, consistent estimates for localities, or more in-depth information on key topics than the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System provides. Eleven state health surveys (SHSs) have emerged in an effort to address these gaps.Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 09/2014; 20(5):E21-E33. DOI:10.1097/PHH.0b013e3182a9c0ce · 1.47 Impact Factor