Judith R Qualters1, Heather M Strosnider, Rosalyn Bell. 1. Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Office of Non-infectious Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Public health surveillance includes dissemination of data and information to those who need it to take action to prevent or control disease. The concept of data to action is explicit in the mission of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program (Tracking Program). The CDC has built a National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (Tracking Network) to integrate health and environmental data to drive public health action (PHA) to improve communities' health. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of the Tracking Program and Tracking Network in environmental public health practice and policy making. DESIGN: We analyzed information on how Tracking (all program components hereafter referred to generally as "Tracking") has been used to drive PHAs within funded states and cities (grantees). Two case studies are presented to highlight Tracking's utility. SETTING: Analyses included all grantees funded between 2005 and 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven states, 3 cities, and the District of Columbia ever received funding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We categorized each PHA reported to determine how grantees became involved, their role, the problems addressed, and the overall action. RESULTS: Tracking grantees reported 178 PHAs from 2006 to 2013. The most common overall action was "provided information in response to concern" (n = 42), followed by "improved a public health program, intervention, or response plan" (n = 35). Tracking's role was most often either to enhance surveillance (24%) or to analyze data (23%). In 47% of PHAs, the underlying problem was a concern about possible elevated rates of a health outcome, a potential exposure, or a potential association between a hazard and a health outcome. PHAs were started by a request for assistance (48%), in response to an emergency (8%), and though routine work by Tracking programs (43%). CONCLUSION: Our review shows that the data, expertise, technical infrastructure, and other resources of the Tracking Program and Tracking Network are driving state and local PHAs.
CONTEXT: Public health surveillance includes dissemination of data and information to those who need it to take action to prevent or control disease. The concept of data to action is explicit in the mission of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program (Tracking Program). The CDC has built a National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (Tracking Network) to integrate health and environmental data to drive public health action (PHA) to improve communities' health. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of the Tracking Program and Tracking Network in environmental public health practice and policy making. DESIGN: We analyzed information on how Tracking (all program components hereafter referred to generally as "Tracking") has been used to drive PHAs within funded states and cities (grantees). Two case studies are presented to highlight Tracking's utility. SETTING: Analyses included all grantees funded between 2005 and 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven states, 3 cities, and the District of Columbia ever received funding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We categorized each PHA reported to determine how grantees became involved, their role, the problems addressed, and the overall action. RESULTS: Tracking grantees reported 178 PHAs from 2006 to 2013. The most common overall action was "provided information in response to concern" (n = 42), followed by "improved a public health program, intervention, or response plan" (n = 35). Tracking's role was most often either to enhance surveillance (24%) or to analyze data (23%). In 47% of PHAs, the underlying problem was a concern about possible elevated rates of a health outcome, a potential exposure, or a potential association between a hazard and a health outcome. PHAs were started by a request for assistance (48%), in response to an emergency (8%), and though routine work by Tracking programs (43%). CONCLUSION: Our review shows that the data, expertise, technical infrastructure, and other resources of the Tracking Program and Tracking Network are driving state and local PHAs.
Authors: Judith M Graber; Steven C Macdonald; Daniel E Kass; Andrew E Smith; Henry A Anderson Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Martha Stanbury; Henry Anderson; Carina Blackmore; Jerald Fagliano; Michael Heumann; Daniel Kass; Michael McGeehin Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2012 Sep-Oct
Authors: Susan Hodgson; Daniela Fecht; John Gulliver; Hima Iyathooray Daby; Frédéric B Piel; Fuyuen Yip; Heather Strosnider; Anna Hansell; Paul Elliott Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 7.196