Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5R01DK109913 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate dissemination strategies to support the uptake of evidence-based programs and policies (EBPPs) for diabetes prevention and control among local-level public health practitioners. Dissemination strategies such as multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, and remote technical assistance are hypothesized to associate with improved access and use of public health evidence and organizational supports for program and policy decision making based on evidence-based public health.
Evidence-based public health approaches to prevent and control diabetes and other chronic diseases have been identified in recent decades, and could have a profound effect on diabetes incidence and quality and length of life of those diagnosed. However, barriers to implement approaches continue because of lack of organizational support, limited resources, competing priorities, and limited skill among the public health workforce. The purpose of this study is to determine effective ways to promote the adoption of evidence based public health practice related to diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control among local health departments (LHDs). This stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial aims to evaluate active dissemination strategies on local-level public health practitioners to increase adoption and use of evidence-based programs and policies for diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control among LHDs in Missouri. Twelve LHDs will be recruited and randomly assigned to one of three groups that cross over from usual practice to receive the intervention (dissemination) strategies at 8-month intervals; the intervention duration for groups ranges from 8 to 24 months. LHD staff and the university-based study team are jointly identifying, refining and selecting dissemination strategies. Intervention strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, and remote technical assistance. Evaluation methods include surveys at baseline and at each 8-month interval, abstraction of LHD chronic disease prevention program plans and progress reports, and social network analysis.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | No Intervention | The control group will conduct usual public health practice. | |
| Intervention | Active Comparator | Participating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dissemination of public health knowledge | Other | Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM) Competencies | Survey participants were asked to rate the perceived importance of each of 10 skills pertinent to evidence-based decision making on an 11-point ordered scale (possible values 0 not at all important to 10 very important for each skill), and to rate the perceived availability in the agency of each of the same skills from 0-10 (0 not at all available to 10 very available). A skill gap was calculated for each skill as perceived importance minus perceived availability (possible values -10 to +10 for each skill). An overall EBDM skill gap was created by taking the average across all 10 skill gaps (possible values -10 to +10). Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. Skill items: community assessment; quantifying the issue; prioritization; action planning; adapting interventions; evaluation designs; quantitative evaluation; qualitative evaluation; economic evaluation; and communicating evidence to decision-makers. A definition for each was provided that started with the word "understand". | 24 months post baseline |
| Evidence-based Intervention Score | Self-reported number of evidence-based chronic disease prevention interventions implemented by the local health department from a pre-populated list of 8 evidence-based interventions to prevent diabetes and other chronic diseases (possible score 0 to 8). Higher score indicates a better outcome. | 24 months post baseline |
| Awareness of Culture Supportive of EBDM | Self-report Likert scale items measure personal awareness of opportunities to learn about and apply EBDM among local level chronic disease control public health practitioners. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. The items were: a) I am provided the time to identify evidence-based programs and practices; b) My direct supervisor recognizes the value of management practices that facilitate evidence-based decision-making; c) My work group/division offers employees opportunities to attend evidence-based-decision making trainings; and d) Top leadership in my agency (e.g., director, assistant directors) recognizes the value of evidence-based decision-making. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Inter-agency Connectedness | The average number of links per agency is the measure of connectedness with other agencies that is reported here. The measure is from a separate self-report social network survey. | 24 months post baseline |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ross C Brownson, PhD | Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis | St Louis | Missouri | 63130 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29047384 | Background | Parks RG, Tabak RG, Allen P, Baker EA, Stamatakis KA, Poehler AR, Yan Y, Chin MH, Harris JK, Dobbins M, Brownson RC. Enhancing evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease control among local health departments: a multi-phase dissemination study with a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial component. Implement Sci. 2017 Oct 18;12(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0650-4. | |
| 35570955 | Result | Jacob RR, Parks RG, Allen P, Mazzucca S, Yan Y, Kang S, Dekker D, Brownson RC. How to "Start Small and Just Keep Moving Forward": Mixed Methods Results From a Stepped-Wedge Trial to Support Evidence-Based Processes in Local Health Departments. Front Public Health. 2022 Apr 28;10:853791. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.853791. eCollection 2022. |
| Label | URL |
|---|---|
| Click here for more information about this study: Adoption and Implementation of evidence to Mobilize Local Health | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Each group of 4 health departments crossed over into intervention at different times.
In the stepped-wedge design, at baseline, surveys from all 12 health departments were analyzed as control surveys. Once a health department had crossed over into intervention, all remaining surveys of that health department's employees were analyzed as intervention surveys. At the last survey data collection, all surveys were analyzed as intervention surveys.
12 local public health departments were recruited into the study in 3 groups. Once a health department agreed to participate, health department managers provided employee lists for self-report survey invitations.
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Group 1 - Control (2 Months), Then Intervention (24 Months) | While in control status, the health departments will conduct usual public health practice. During Intervention, each health department will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control. Dissemination of public health knowledge: Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Oct 11, 2021 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| 24 months post baseline |
| Capacity and Expectations for Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM) | Self-report Likert scale items assess perceived supervisory expectations for EBDM use and perceived work unit/division capacity to carry out EBDM. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items (possible scores 1 to 7). Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) I use EBDMin my work; b) My direct supervisor expects me to use evidence-based decision making; c) My performance is partially evaluated on how well I use evidence-based decision making in my work; d) My work group/division currently has the resources (e.g. staff, facilities, partners) to support application of evidence-based decision making; e) The staff in my work group/division has the necessary skills to carry out evidence-based decision making; f) The majority of my work group/division's external partners support use of EBDM; and g) Top leadership in my agency encourages use of EBDM. | 24 months post baseline |
| Resource Availability | Self-report Likert scale items measured perceived work unit's resource availability for evidence-based decision making. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. The items in the scale were: a) Informational resources (e.g. academic journals, guidelines, and toolkits) are available to my work group/division to promote the use of evidence-based decision making; b) My work group/division engages a diverse external network of partners that share resources to facilitate evidence-based decision making; and c) Stable funding is available for evidence-based decision making. | 24 months post baseline |
| Evaluation Capacity of Work Unit | Self-report Likert scale of work unit's support of community needs assessment, utilization of evaluation for pre and post program implementation as well as for dissemination purposes. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) My work group/division supports community needs assessments to ensure that evidence-based decision-making approaches continue to meet community needs; b) My work group/division plans for evaluation of interventions prior to implementation; c) My work group/division uses evaluation data to monitor and improve interventions; and d) My work group/division distributes intervention evaluation findings to other organizations that can use our findings. | 24 months post baseline |
| EBDM Climate Cultivation | Self-report Likert scale assessing perceived health department culture supportive of EBDM, information sharing and participatory decision making. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) My work group/division has access to evidence-based decision making information that is relevant to community needs; b) When decisions are made within my work group/division, program staff members are asked for input; c) Information is widely shared in my work group/division so that everyone who makes decisions has access to all available knowledge; d) My agency is committed to hiring people with relevant training or experience in public health core disciplines (e.g., epidemiology, health education, environmental health); and e) My agency has a culture that supports the processes necessary for EBDM. | 24 months post baseline |
| Partnerships to Support EBDM | Self-report Likert scale items assess perceived importance of partnering across sectors to share resources and address population health issues. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) Our collaborative partnerships have missions that align with my agency; b) It is important to my agency to have partners who share resources (money, staff time, space, materials); c) It is important to my agency to have partners in health care to address population health issues; and d) It is important to my agency to have partners in other sectors (outside of health) to address population health issues | 24 months post baseline |
| Protocol paper | View source |
| Results paper | View source |
| FG001 | Group 2 - Control (10 Months), Then Intervention (16 Months) | While in control status, the health department conducted usual public health practice. Intervention began with a multi-day training in evidence-based decision making. Then each health department selected and helped develop intra-organizational procedures, policies, and additional activities to embed evidence-based decision making into day-to-day public health practice. |
| FG002 | Group 3 - Control (18 Months), Then Intervention (8 Months) | While in control status, the health department conducted usual public health practice. Intervention began with a multi-day training in evidence-based decision making. Then each health department selected and helped develop intra-organizational procedures, policies, and additional activities to embed evidence-based decision making into day-to-day public health practice. |
|
| Survey Time 2 | At Survey Time 2, 37 health department employees were added to replace those no longer working at the agency. |
|
| Survey Time 3 | More unique health department employee participants were again added (27 due to employee turnover and 15 to better reflect Group 2 health department units involved in the intervention). |
|
| Survey Time 4 | At Survey Time 4, all groups were in Intervention status. At Survey Time 4, 23 health department employees were added to replace those no longer working at the health departments. |
|
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
The unit of analysis is surveys. In the stepped-wedge design, analyses were conducted on the completed surveys, not unique individuals, since all individual health department employee survey participants were controls at the beginning and crossed over to intervention before the last survey data collection.
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Control | The control group will conduct usual public health practice. |
| BG001 | Intervention | Participating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control. Dissemination of public health knowledge: Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| completed surveys |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Customized | Number | completed surveys | completed surveys |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Units | completed surveys | completed surveys |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized | Race/Ethnicity Not Collected. | Race/Ethnicity was not collected, therefore the number analyzed of zero is different from the overall number of surveys analyzed for the other measures. | Count of Units | completed surveys | completed surveys |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Region of Enrollment | Number | completed surveys | completed surveys |
|
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM) Competencies | Survey participants were asked to rate the perceived importance of each of 10 skills pertinent to evidence-based decision making on an 11-point ordered scale (possible values 0 not at all important to 10 very important for each skill), and to rate the perceived availability in the agency of each of the same skills from 0-10 (0 not at all available to 10 very available). A skill gap was calculated for each skill as perceived importance minus perceived availability (possible values -10 to +10 for each skill). An overall EBDM skill gap was created by taking the average across all 10 skill gaps (possible values -10 to +10). Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. Skill items: community assessment; quantifying the issue; prioritization; action planning; adapting interventions; evaluation designs; quantitative evaluation; qualitative evaluation; economic evaluation; and communicating evidence to decision-makers. A definition for each was provided that started with the word "understand". | The unit of analysis is completed surveys due to the stepped-wedge design and having a different set of survey participants at each of the 4 survey time points. All baseline surveys were analyzed as control; at T4 all surveys were analyzed as intervention. Survey participants were health department employees. Due to staff turnover, some had left the agency between each data collection period and others hired, so additional health department staff were invited at Survey T2, T3, and T4. | Posted | Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | score on a scale | 24 months post baseline | completed surveys | completed surveys |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary | Evidence-based Intervention Score | Self-reported number of evidence-based chronic disease prevention interventions implemented by the local health department from a pre-populated list of 8 evidence-based interventions to prevent diabetes and other chronic diseases (possible score 0 to 8). Higher score indicates a better outcome. | The unit of analysis is completed surveys due to the stepped-wedge design and having a different set of survey participants at each of the 4 survey time points. All baseline surveys were analyzed as control; at T4 all surveys were analyzed as intervention. Survey participants were health department employees. Due to staff turnover, some had left the agency between each data collection period and others hired, so additional health department staff were invited at Survey T2, T3, and T4. | Posted | Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | units on a scale | 24 months post baseline | completed surveys | completed surveys |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary | Awareness of Culture Supportive of EBDM | Self-report Likert scale items measure personal awareness of opportunities to learn about and apply EBDM among local level chronic disease control public health practitioners. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. The items were: a) I am provided the time to identify evidence-based programs and practices; b) My direct supervisor recognizes the value of management practices that facilitate evidence-based decision-making; c) My work group/division offers employees opportunities to attend evidence-based-decision making trainings; and d) Top leadership in my agency (e.g., director, assistant directors) recognizes the value of evidence-based decision-making. | The unit of analysis is completed surveys due to the stepped-wedge design and having a different set of survey participants at each of the 4 survey time points. All baseline surveys were analyzed as control; at T4 all surveys were analyzed as intervention. Survey participants were health department employees. Due to staff turnover, some had left the agency between each data collection period and others hired, so additional health department staff were invited at Survey T2, T3, and T4. | Posted | Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | score on a scale | 24 months post baseline | completed surveys | completed surveys |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary | Capacity and Expectations for Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM) | Self-report Likert scale items assess perceived supervisory expectations for EBDM use and perceived work unit/division capacity to carry out EBDM. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items (possible scores 1 to 7). Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) I use EBDMin my work; b) My direct supervisor expects me to use evidence-based decision making; c) My performance is partially evaluated on how well I use evidence-based decision making in my work; d) My work group/division currently has the resources (e.g. staff, facilities, partners) to support application of evidence-based decision making; e) The staff in my work group/division has the necessary skills to carry out evidence-based decision making; f) The majority of my work group/division's external partners support use of EBDM; and g) Top leadership in my agency encourages use of EBDM. | The unit of analysis is completed surveys due to the stepped-wedge design and having a different set of survey participants at each of the 4 survey time points. All baseline surveys were analyzed as control; at T4 all surveys were analyzed as intervention. Survey participants were health department employees. Due to staff turnover, some had left the agency between each data collection period and others hired, so additional health department staff were invited at Survey T2, T3, and T4. | Posted | Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | score on a scale | 24 months post baseline | completed surveys | completed surveys |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary | Resource Availability | Self-report Likert scale items measured perceived work unit's resource availability for evidence-based decision making. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. The items in the scale were: a) Informational resources (e.g. academic journals, guidelines, and toolkits) are available to my work group/division to promote the use of evidence-based decision making; b) My work group/division engages a diverse external network of partners that share resources to facilitate evidence-based decision making; and c) Stable funding is available for evidence-based decision making. | The unit of analysis is completed surveys due to the stepped-wedge design and having a different set of survey participants at each of the 4 survey time points. All baseline surveys were analyzed as control; at T4 all surveys were analyzed as intervention. Survey participants were health department employees. Due to staff turnover, some had left the agency between each data collection period and others hired, so additional health department staff were invited at Survey T2, T3, and T4. | Posted | Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | score on a scale | 24 months post baseline | completed surveys | completed surveys |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary | Evaluation Capacity of Work Unit | Self-report Likert scale of work unit's support of community needs assessment, utilization of evaluation for pre and post program implementation as well as for dissemination purposes. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) My work group/division supports community needs assessments to ensure that evidence-based decision-making approaches continue to meet community needs; b) My work group/division plans for evaluation of interventions prior to implementation; c) My work group/division uses evaluation data to monitor and improve interventions; and d) My work group/division distributes intervention evaluation findings to other organizations that can use our findings. | The unit of analysis is completed surveys due to the stepped-wedge design and having a different set of survey participants at each of the 4 survey time points. All baseline surveys were analyzed as control; at T4 all surveys were analyzed as intervention. Survey participants were health department employees. Due to staff turnover, some had left the agency between each data collection period and others hired, so additional health department staff were invited at Survey T2, T3, and T4. | Posted | Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | score on a scale | 24 months post baseline | completed surveys | completed surveys |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary | EBDM Climate Cultivation | Self-report Likert scale assessing perceived health department culture supportive of EBDM, information sharing and participatory decision making. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) My work group/division has access to evidence-based decision making information that is relevant to community needs; b) When decisions are made within my work group/division, program staff members are asked for input; c) Information is widely shared in my work group/division so that everyone who makes decisions has access to all available knowledge; d) My agency is committed to hiring people with relevant training or experience in public health core disciplines (e.g., epidemiology, health education, environmental health); and e) My agency has a culture that supports the processes necessary for EBDM. | The unit of analysis is completed surveys due to the stepped-wedge design and having a different set of survey participants at each of the 4 survey time points. All baseline surveys were analyzed as control; at T4 all surveys were analyzed as intervention. Survey participants were health department employees. Due to staff turnover, some had left the agency between each data collection period and others hired, so additional health department staff were invited at Survey T2, T3, and T4. | Posted | Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | score on a scale | 24 months post baseline | completed surveys | completed surveys |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary | Partnerships to Support EBDM | Self-report Likert scale items assess perceived importance of partnering across sectors to share resources and address population health issues. Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. A summary score was created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 7. Higher scores mean a better outcome. Items: a) Our collaborative partnerships have missions that align with my agency; b) It is important to my agency to have partners who share resources (money, staff time, space, materials); c) It is important to my agency to have partners in health care to address population health issues; and d) It is important to my agency to have partners in other sectors (outside of health) to address population health issues | The unit of analysis is completed surveys due to the stepped-wedge design and having a different set of survey participants at each of the 4 survey time points. All baseline surveys were analyzed as control; at T4 all surveys were analyzed as intervention. Survey participants were health department employees. Due to staff turnover, some had left the agency between each data collection period and others hired, so additional health department staff were invited at Survey T2, T3, and T4. | Posted | Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | score on a scale | 24 months post baseline | completed surveys | completed surveys |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Inter-agency Connectedness | The average number of links per agency is the measure of connectedness with other agencies that is reported here. The measure is from a separate self-report social network survey. | Agencies with completed social network surveys at baseline when all health departments were in control status and at the end of the study when all health departments were in the intervention. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Agencies | 24 months post baseline | Agencies | Agencies |
|
Not provided
Clinical adverse event data were not collected because there were no study outcomes involving a health behavior, a disease or health condition, a symptom, or health status. Outcomes were perceived capacity for and organizational supports for use of evidence-based decision making among public health department employees.
The main risk to participants was loss of confidentiality of survey response, which was monitored. No losses of confidentiality were found by or reported to the study team.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Control | The control group will conduct usual public health practice. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| EG001 | Intervention | Participating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control. Dissemination of public health knowledge: Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Not provided
Not provided
The stepped-wedge design allowed all 12 health departments to participate in intervention but completing surveys at 4 time points was a burden to employees. Due to staff turnover, we added new employees at each time point, and lost others due to no longer working at the health department. Responses to the quantitative survey were self-reported, which introduces the possibility of response bias. Response rates dropped at the last data collection in spring 2020 during LHD pandemic efforts.
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ross Brownson | Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis | 3149350121 | rbrownson@wustl.edu |
| Dec 2, 2022 |
| Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| 40-49 years |
|
| 50-59 years |
|
| >=60 years |
|
| Not reported |
|
| completed surveys |
|
|
| completed surveys |
|
|
| completed surveys |
|
|
|
|
| Intervention |
Participating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control. Dissemination of public health knowledge: Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. |
|
|
| OG001 | Intervention | Participating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control. Dissemination of public health knowledge: Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. |
|
|
Participating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control.
Dissemination of public health knowledge: Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control.
|
|
| Intervention |
Participating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control. Dissemination of public health knowledge: Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. |
|
|
| OG001 | Intervention | Participating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control. Dissemination of public health knowledge: Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. |
|
|
Participating local health departments will help develop and choose several dissemination activities they prefer for their local health department to receive. Dissemination activities may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control. Dissemination of public health knowledge: Participating local health departments will help develop and choose dissemination strategies they prefer for their staff working in and supporting diabetes and chronic disease prevention and control to receive. Dissemination strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, remote technical assistance, and information on ways to enhance organizational climates favorable to evidence-based diabetes prevention and control. |
|
|
|
|