Improving Public Health Preparedness Capacity Measurement: Development of the Local Health Department Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey

Davis, Mary V.; Mays, Glen P.; Bellamy, James E. C.; Bevc, Christine A.; Marti, Cammie

doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.108

Cited by 13 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the Adaptive Response Metric tool for measuring the unequal impact of incident response on health department functions or subunits, 36,37 combined use of a Critical Incident Registry and peer assessment for after-action learning, 25,26 and the Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey to assess health department capacities and performance. 9 illustrate promising approaches to PHEPR system performance monitoring for program improvement. Although the PERRC program commenced in 2008, some of the PERRCs' evaluation criteria and performance metrics align (post hoc) with the framework of PHEP capabilities published in 2011 and therefore may support monitoring and measurement of PHEP program capabilities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Davis et al developed and tested the Local Health Department Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey (PCAS). 9 The survey instrument was fielded with the 85 North Carolina LHDs and 247 comparison LHDs. Interviews conducted as part of instrument development and validation "emphasized that emergency preparedness is a team effort in which different health department personnel have a different working knowledge of facets of preparedness."…”

Section: Savoia and Colleagues Used Data From The 2005 Nationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public Health Emergency Preparedness System Evaluation Criteria and Performance Metrics: A Review of Contributions of the CDC-Funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers

Qari

Yusuf

Groseclose

et al. 2018

Disaster med. public health prep.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) conducted research from 2008 to 2015 aimed to improve the complex public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) system. This paper summarizes PERRC studies that addressed the development and assessment of criteria for evaluating PHEPR and metrics for measuring their efficiency and effectiveness.MethodsWe reviewed 171 PERRC publications indexed in PubMed between 2009 and 2016. These publications derived from 34 PERRC research projects. We identified publications that addressed the development or assessment of criteria and metrics pertaining to PHEPR systems and describe the evaluation methods used and tools developed, the system domains evaluated, and the metrics developed or assessed.ResultsWe identified 29 publications from 12 of the 34 PERRC projects that addressed PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics. We grouped each study into 1 of 3 system domains, based on the metrics developed or assessed: (1) organizational characteristics (n = 9), (2) emergency response performance (n = 12), and (3) workforce capacity or capability (n = 8). These studies addressed PHEPR system activities including responses to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the 2011 tsunami, as well as emergency exercise performance, situational awareness, and workforce willingness to respond. Both PHEPR system process and outcome metrics were developed or assessed by PERRC studies.ConclusionsPERRC researchers developed and evaluated a range of PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics that should be considered by system partners interested in assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities. Nonetheless, the monitoring and measurement problem in PHEPR is far from solved. Lack of standard measures that are readily obtained or computed at local levels remains a challenge for the public health preparedness field. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:626-638)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Savoia and Colleagues Used Data From The 2005 Nationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Health Emergency Preparedness System Evaluation Criteria and Performance Metrics: A Review of Contributions of the CDC-Funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers

Qari

Yusuf

Groseclose

et al. 2018

Disaster med. public health prep.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are no existing estimates of S. pneumoniae -specific mortality or distribution of S. pneumoniae deaths by week or month of age. We generated estimates of week of age-specific under-five pneumococcal mortality rates using existing estimates of country-specific under-five mortality rate (U5MR) [15], the proportion of under-five deaths due to pneumonia and meningitis [16], the proportion of pneumonia [17] and meningitis deaths [18] due to S. pneumoniae in the absence of Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) or PCV vaccination, and the modeled distribution of IPD deaths. We modeled the age distribution of deaths from S. pneumoniae based on the binned distribution of IPD deaths reported by five studies with a sample of >25 IPD deaths included in a review by Russell and colleagues [10].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of vaccination delay on deaths averted by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine: Modeled effects in 8 country scenarios

Carter

Tam

Walker

2019

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delay in vaccination from schedule has been frequently documented and varies by vaccine, dose, and setting. Vaccination delay may result in the failure to prevent deaths that would have been averted by on-schedule vaccination. We constructed a model to assess the impact of delay in vaccination with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) on under-five mortality. The model accounted for the week of age-specific risk of pneumococcal mortality, direct effect of vaccination, and herd protection. For each model run, a cohort of children were exposed to the risk of mortality and protective effect of PCV for each week of age from birth to age five. The model was run with and without vaccination delay and difference in number of deaths averted was calculated. We applied the model to eight country-specific vaccination scenarios, reflecting variations in observed vaccination delay, PCV coverage, herd effect, mortality risk, and vaccination schedule. As PCV is currently being scaled up in India, we additionally evaluated the impact of vaccination delay in India under various delay scenarios and coverage levels. We found deaths averted by PCV with and without delay to be comparable in all of the country scenarios when accounting for herd protection. In India, the greatest relative difference in deaths averted was observed at low coverage levels and greatest absolute difference was observed around 60% vaccination coverage. Under moderate delay scenarios, vaccination delay had modest impact on deaths averted by PCV in India across levels of coverage or vaccination schedule. Without accounting for herd protection, vaccination delay resulted in much greater failure to avert deaths. Our model suggests that realistic vaccination delay has a minimal impact on the number of deaths averted by PCV when accounting for herd effect. High population coverage can largely over-ride the deleterious effect of vaccination delay through herd protection.

show abstract

“…14 Propensity score matching selection criteria were based on a set of representative public health agency and system characteristics obtained from the National Association of County and City Health Officials 2010 Profile (n52,151) 13 and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Area Health Resource File (ARF) 28 (n53,225), including scope of services delivered, annual agency expenditures per capita, population size served, socioeconomic characteristics of the community (e.g., percent living in poverty, percent nonwhite, and rural/urban composition), and other health resources within the community. 14,[30][31][32] NC LHDs that had achieved accreditation through the NCLHDA program from 2005 through 2010 were designated as NC Accredited; all other NC LHDs were designated as NC Not Accredited. PPHR participation was designated through PPHR recognition from 2004 to 2010.…”

Section: Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Despite the considerable investment in PHP, there are still gaps and variations in the performance of preparedness activities. 13,14 Heterogeneity in the composition and structure of public health systems is an important source of variation in preparedness, as it is in other aspects of public health practice. Further, performance standards for preparedness have been developed by various agencies and organizations, resulting in overlapping and sometimes inconsistent recommendations and program requirements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Performance Improvement Programs on Preparedness Capacities

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. In response to public health systems and services research priorities, we examined the extent to which participation in accreditation and performance improvement programs can be expected to enhance preparedness capacities.Methods. Using data collected by the Local Health Department Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey, we applied a series of weighted least-squares models to examine the effect of program participation on each of the eight preparedness domain scores. Participation was differentiated across four groups: North Carolina (NC) accredited local health departments (LHDs), NC non-accredited LHDs, national comparison LHDs that participated in performance or preparedness programs, and national comparison LHDs that did not participate in any program.Results. Domain scores varied among the four groups. Statistically significant positive participation effects were observed on six of eight preparedness domains for NC accreditation programs, on seven domains for national comparison group LHDs that participated in performance programs, and on four domains for NC non-accredited LHDs.Conclusions. Overall, accreditation and other performance improvement programs have a significant and positive effect on preparedness capacities. While we found no differences among accredited and non-accredited NC LHDs, this lack of significant difference in preparedness scores among NC LHDs is attributed to NC's robust statewide preparedness program, as well as a likely exposure effect among non-accredited NC LHDs to the accreditation program.

show abstract

Improving Public Health Preparedness Capacity Measurement: Development of the Local Health Department Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey

Cited by 13 publications

References 32 publications

Public Health Emergency Preparedness System Evaluation Criteria and Performance Metrics: A Review of Contributions of the CDC-Funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers

Public Health Emergency Preparedness System Evaluation Criteria and Performance Metrics: A Review of Contributions of the CDC-Funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers

Impact of vaccination delay on deaths averted by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine: Modeled effects in 8 country scenarios

Effects of Performance Improvement Programs on Preparedness Capacities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About