Gulzar H Shah1, Sergey Sotnikov, Carolyn J Leep, Jiali Ye, Liza Corso. 1. Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia (Dr Shah); Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (Drs Sotnikov and Corso); and National Association of County & City Health Officials, Washington, District of Columbia (Ms Leep and Dr Ye).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Local boards of health (LBoHs) serve as the governance body for 71% of local health departments (LHDs). PURPOSE: To assess the impact of LBoH governance functions and other characteristics on the level of LBoH support of LHD accreditation. METHODS: Data from 394 LHDs that participated in the 2015 Local Boards of Health Survey were used for computing summative scores for LBoHs for domains of taxonomy and performing logistic regression analyses in 2016. RESULTS: Increased odds of an LBoH directing, encouraging, or supporting LHD accreditation activities were significantly associated with (a) a higher overall combined score measuring performance of governance functions and presence of other LBoH characteristics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05; P < .001); (b) a higher combined score for the Governance Functions subscale (AOR = 1.06; P < .01); (c) the "continuous improvement" governance function (AOR = 1.15; P < .001); and (d) characteristics and strengths such as board composition (eg, LBoH size, type of training, elected vs nonelected members), community engagement and input, and the absence of an elected official on the board (AOR = 1.14; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: LBoHs are evenly split by thirds in their attention to Public Health Accreditation Board accreditation among the following categories: (a) encouraged or supported, (b) discussed but made no recommendations, and (c) did not discuss. This split might indicate that they are depending on the professional leadership of the LHD to make the decision or that there is a lack of awareness. The study findings have policy implications for both LBoHs and initiatives aimed at strengthening efforts to promote LHD accreditation.
BACKGROUND: Local boards of health (LBoHs) serve as the governance body for 71% of local health departments (LHDs). PURPOSE: To assess the impact of LBoH governance functions and other characteristics on the level of LBoH support of LHD accreditation. METHODS: Data from 394 LHDs that participated in the 2015 Local Boards of Health Survey were used for computing summative scores for LBoHs for domains of taxonomy and performing logistic regression analyses in 2016. RESULTS: Increased odds of an LBoH directing, encouraging, or supporting LHD accreditation activities were significantly associated with (a) a higher overall combined score measuring performance of governance functions and presence of other LBoH characteristics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05; P < .001); (b) a higher combined score for the Governance Functions subscale (AOR = 1.06; P < .01); (c) the "continuous improvement" governance function (AOR = 1.15; P < .001); and (d) characteristics and strengths such as board composition (eg, LBoH size, type of training, elected vs nonelected members), community engagement and input, and the absence of an elected official on the board (AOR = 1.14; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS:LBoHs are evenly split by thirds in their attention to Public Health Accreditation Board accreditation among the following categories: (a) encouraged or supported, (b) discussed but made no recommendations, and (c) did not discuss. This split might indicate that they are depending on the professional leadership of the LHD to make the decision or that there is a lack of awareness. The study findings have policy implications for both LBoHs and initiatives aimed at strengthening efforts to promote LHD accreditation.
Authors: Gulzar H Shah; Carolyn J Leep; Jiali Ye; Katie Sellers; Rivka Liss-Levinson; Karmen S Williams Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2015 Mar-Apr
Authors: Gulzar H Shah; Sergey Sotnikov; Carolyn J Leep; Jiali Ye; Timothy W Van Wave Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 9.308