Cargando…

Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments

BACKGROUND: Public health resources are limited and best used for effective programs. This study explores associations of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs or continuing ineffective programs) with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making among U.S. loca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Allen, Peg, Jacob, Rebekah R., Parks, Renee G., Mazzucca, Stephanie, Hu, Hengrui, Robinson, Mackenzie, Dobbins, Maureen, Dekker, Debra, Padek, Margaret, Brownson, Ross C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7106610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32228688
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05141-5
_version_ 1783512643313598464
author Allen, Peg
Jacob, Rebekah R.
Parks, Renee G.
Mazzucca, Stephanie
Hu, Hengrui
Robinson, Mackenzie
Dobbins, Maureen
Dekker, Debra
Padek, Margaret
Brownson, Ross C.
author_facet Allen, Peg
Jacob, Rebekah R.
Parks, Renee G.
Mazzucca, Stephanie
Hu, Hengrui
Robinson, Mackenzie
Dobbins, Maureen
Dekker, Debra
Padek, Margaret
Brownson, Ross C.
author_sort Allen, Peg
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Public health resources are limited and best used for effective programs. This study explores associations of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs or continuing ineffective programs) with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making among U.S. local health departments. METHODS: The national U.S. sample for this cross-sectional study was stratified by local health department jurisdiction population size. One person was invited from each randomly selected local health department: the leader in chronic disease, or the director. Of 600 selected, 579 had valid email addresses; 376 completed the survey (64.9% response). Survey items assessed frequency of and reasons for mis-implementation. Participants indicated agreement with statements on organizational supports for evidence-based decision making (7-point Likert). RESULTS: Thirty percent (30.0%) reported programs often or always ended that should have continued (inappropriate termination); organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were not associated with the frequency of programs ending. The main reason given for inappropriate termination was grant funding ended (86.0%). Fewer (16.4%) reported programs often or always continued that should have ended (inappropriate continuation). Higher perceived organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were associated with less frequent inappropriate continuation (odds ratio = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79, 0.94). All organizational support factors were negatively associated with inappropriate continuation. Top reasons were sustained funding (55.6%) and support from policymakers (34.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Organizational supports for evidence-based decision making may help local health departments avoid continuing programs that should end. Creative mechanisms of support are needed to avoid inappropriate termination. Understanding what influences mis-implementation can help identify supports for de-implementation of ineffective programs so resources can go towards evidence-based programs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7106610
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71066102020-04-01 Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments Allen, Peg Jacob, Rebekah R. Parks, Renee G. Mazzucca, Stephanie Hu, Hengrui Robinson, Mackenzie Dobbins, Maureen Dekker, Debra Padek, Margaret Brownson, Ross C. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Public health resources are limited and best used for effective programs. This study explores associations of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs or continuing ineffective programs) with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making among U.S. local health departments. METHODS: The national U.S. sample for this cross-sectional study was stratified by local health department jurisdiction population size. One person was invited from each randomly selected local health department: the leader in chronic disease, or the director. Of 600 selected, 579 had valid email addresses; 376 completed the survey (64.9% response). Survey items assessed frequency of and reasons for mis-implementation. Participants indicated agreement with statements on organizational supports for evidence-based decision making (7-point Likert). RESULTS: Thirty percent (30.0%) reported programs often or always ended that should have continued (inappropriate termination); organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were not associated with the frequency of programs ending. The main reason given for inappropriate termination was grant funding ended (86.0%). Fewer (16.4%) reported programs often or always continued that should have ended (inappropriate continuation). Higher perceived organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were associated with less frequent inappropriate continuation (odds ratio = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79, 0.94). All organizational support factors were negatively associated with inappropriate continuation. Top reasons were sustained funding (55.6%) and support from policymakers (34.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Organizational supports for evidence-based decision making may help local health departments avoid continuing programs that should end. Creative mechanisms of support are needed to avoid inappropriate termination. Understanding what influences mis-implementation can help identify supports for de-implementation of ineffective programs so resources can go towards evidence-based programs. BioMed Central 2020-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7106610/ /pubmed/32228688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05141-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Allen, Peg
Jacob, Rebekah R.
Parks, Renee G.
Mazzucca, Stephanie
Hu, Hengrui
Robinson, Mackenzie
Dobbins, Maureen
Dekker, Debra
Padek, Margaret
Brownson, Ross C.
Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments
title Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments
title_full Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments
title_fullStr Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments
title_full_unstemmed Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments
title_short Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments
title_sort perspectives on program mis-implementation among u.s. local public health departments
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7106610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32228688
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05141-5
work_keys_str_mv AT allenpeg perspectivesonprogrammisimplementationamonguslocalpublichealthdepartments
AT jacobrebekahr perspectivesonprogrammisimplementationamonguslocalpublichealthdepartments
AT parksreneeg perspectivesonprogrammisimplementationamonguslocalpublichealthdepartments
AT mazzuccastephanie perspectivesonprogrammisimplementationamonguslocalpublichealthdepartments
AT huhengrui perspectivesonprogrammisimplementationamonguslocalpublichealthdepartments
AT robinsonmackenzie perspectivesonprogrammisimplementationamonguslocalpublichealthdepartments
AT dobbinsmaureen perspectivesonprogrammisimplementationamonguslocalpublichealthdepartments
AT dekkerdebra perspectivesonprogrammisimplementationamonguslocalpublichealthdepartments
AT padekmargaret perspectivesonprogrammisimplementationamonguslocalpublichealthdepartments
AT brownsonrossc perspectivesonprogrammisimplementationamonguslocalpublichealthdepartments