BackgroundAnnually since 2010, the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have produced the County Health Rankings—a “population health checkup” for the nation’s over 3,000 counties. The purpose of this paper is to review the background and rationale for the Rankings, explain in detail the methods we use to create the health rankings in each state, and discuss the strengths and limitations associated with ranking the health of communities.MethodsWe base the Rankings on a conceptual model of population health that includes both health outcomes (mortality and morbidity) and health factors (health behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors, and the physical environment). Data for over 30 measures available at the county level are assembled from a number of national sources. Z-scores are calculated for each measure, multiplied by their assigned weights, and summed to create composite measure scores. Composite scores are then ordered and counties are ranked from best to worst health within each state.ResultsHealth outcomes and related health factors vary significantly within states, with over two-fold differences between the least healthy counties versus the healthiest counties for measures such as premature mortality, teen birth rates, and percent of children living in poverty. Ranking within each state depicts disparities that are not apparent when counties are ranked across the entire nation.DiscussionThe County Health Rankings can be used to clearly demonstrate differences in health by place, raise awareness of the many factors that influence health, and stimulate community health improvement efforts. The Rankings draws upon the human instinct to compete by facilitating comparisons between neighboring or peer counties within states. Since no population health model, or rankings based off such models, will ever perfectly describe the health of its population, we encourage users to look to local sources of data to understand more about the health of their community.
Background Trials have demonstrated the efficacy of rigorous diet and physical activity promotion (D&PA) programs for adults at increased risk for type 2 diabetes to reduce diabetes incidence and improve measures of glycemia. Purpose To evaluate D&PA programs for individuals at increased risk for type 2 diabetes primarily to lower diabetes risk, lower body weight, and improve glycemia. Data Sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CAB Abstracts, Global Health, and Ovid HealthStar from 1991 through 27 February 2015, with no language restriction. Study Selection 8 researchers screened articles for single group or comparative studies of combined D&PA programs with at least 2 sessions of at least 3 month duration in participants at increased risk for type 2 diabetes. Data Extraction 7 researchers extracted data—on study design, participant, intervention, outcome descriptions, and results—and assessed study quality. Data Synthesis 53 studies (30 D&PA vs. control, 13 more vs. less intensive, 13 in single programs) evaluated 66 programs. Compared with usual care, D&PA reduced type 2 diabetes incidence (RR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.51, 0.66; 16 studies), lowered body weight (net change = −2.2%; 95% CI −2.9, −1.4; 24 studies) and fasting blood glucose (net change = −0.12 mmol/L; 95% CI −0.20, −0.05; 17 studies), and improved other cardiometabolic risk factors. There was limited evidence for clinical events. More intensive programs were more effective. Limitations The wide variation in D&PA programs limited identification of features most relevant to effectiveness. Evidence on clinical outcomes and in children was sparse. Conclusions Combined D&PA promotion programs are effective to decrease diabetes incidence and improve cardiometabolic risk factors for patients at increased risk. More intensive programs are more effective. Primary Funding Source Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Preventive Services Task Force.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.