The 2014-2019 Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Program Funding Opportunity Announcement stated that "all applicants will be expected to collaborate with CDC to collect data to be able to perform cost analysis." For the first time in the 30-year history of the PRC Program, a cost indicator was included in the PRC Program Evaluation and a cost analysis (CA) instrument developed. The PRC-CA instrument systematically collects data on the cost of the PRC core research project to eventually answer the CDC PRC Program Evaluation question: "To what extent do investments in PRCs support the scalability, sustainability, and effectiveness of the outcomes resulting from community-engaged efforts to improve public health?" The objective of this article is to briefly describe the development of the PRC-CA instrument. Data obtained from the PRC-CA instrument can be used to generate cost summaries to inform decision making within the PRC Program and each individual PRC.

Evidence indicates a healthier workforce can improve productivity and lower direct health-care costs, as well as indirect costs such as employee absenteeism.1–8 Yet, the impacts of workplace wellness programs in small- (<100 employees) to mid-sized (100–500 employees) employers are not well known. | | This case study is based on CIPROMS, Inc. (CIPROMS), a mid-sized medical billing and coding company in Indianapolis, Indiana that participated in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthy Worksite Program (NHWP).9 In collaboration with NHWP, CIPROMS developed a workplace wellness program with tailored interventions to improve the health, safety, and well-being of employees to create a healthy work environment.9 CIPROMS also built an infrastructure to maintain the wellness program and increase its potential for sustainability. This infrastructure includes establishing an active wellness committee, cultivating leadership support, providing employee coaching and counseling, and changing the physical environment. The resulting workplace wellness program included healthy choices in vending machines, tobacco cessation medication insurance coverage, and environmental changes such as stairwell signage for physical activity and on-site or nearby farmers’ markets.10

The Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Program began in 1984, when Congress authorized the DHHS to create a network of academic health centers to conduct applied public health prevention research.1 In 1986, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was selected to provide leadership, technical assistance, and oversight for this network of PRCs. | The PRCs are university-based research centers that undertake research-to-practice projects in health promotion and disease prevention. Their work demonstrates the use of new and innovative research in public health approaches that improve the health of the population, particularly those experiencing health disparities. PRCs partner with local, state, and national organizations on a variety of topics, including obesity, diabetes, heart attack and stroke, cancer, physical activity, nutrition, injury prevention, adolescent health, disability prevention among older Americans, and HIV/AIDS. PRCs tap into the expertise of diverse disciplines across their universities and beyond to address health issues and employ diverse methods appropriate to their research questions. A timeline of significant PRC milestones is depicted in the Appendix (available online) and PRC funding appropriations are depicted in Figure 1.

The 30th anniversary of the founding of the Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Network is an appropriate time to reflect on our progress as well as look to the future. Applied prevention research with a focus on understanding health disparities and promoting health equity has never been more important than now. With innovative leadership and a commitment to promoting health for all, the PRC Network has made great strides in developing, testing, and disseminating programs and policies that have had broad and sustained impact. | The PRC Program supports research that identifies unique public health solutions for those who are experiencing health disparities. PRCs conduct community-engaged research that supports the mission of the PRC Program by: | 1 | serving as the hub for conducting high-impact and innovative applied public health prevention research; | 2 | conducting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-supported PRC research focusing on ways to maximize public health resources and reduce healthcare costs, with an emphasis on the leading causes of disease and disability; | 3 | serving as a leader in the field of prevention research for conducting, disseminating, and implementing quality research; | 4 | investing in PRCs and thus supporting their infrastructure and core resources, strengthening centers’ ability to leverage outside resources and expand their reach and impact; | 5 | engaging local communities and serving a resource for public health partners; | 6 | capitalizing on the collaboration and partnership with health departments and other public health partners to translate promising research findings into practical, cost-effective prevention programs relevant to the needs of the communities; and | 7 | collaborating with many partners to train and prepare the public health workforce to assess and evaluate existing health programs or policies.

Persons who died of Ebola virus disease at home in rural communities in Liberia and Guinea resulted in more secondary infections than persons admitted to Ebola treatment units. Intensified monitoring of contacts of persons who died of this disease in the community is an evidence-based approach to reduce virus transmission in rural communities.

We measured the reproduction number before and after interventions were implemented to reduce Ebola transmission in 9 outbreaks in Liberia during 2014. We evaluated risk factors for secondary cases and the association between patient admission to an Ebola treatment unit (ETU) and survival. The reproduction number declined 94% from 1.7 (95% CI 1.1-2.6) to 0.1 (95% CI 0.02-0.6) after interventions began. The risk for secondary infections was 90% lower for patients admitted to an ETU (risk ratio 0.1, 95% CI 0.04-0.3) than for those who died in the community. The case-fatality rate was 68% (95% CI 60-74), and ETU admission was associated with a 50% reduction in death (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.8). Isolation and treatment of Ebola patients had the dual benefit of interrupting community transmission and improving survival.

BACKGROUND: Breast and cervical cancers have emerged as major global health challenges and disproportionately lead to excess morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) when compared to high-income countries. The objective of this paper was to highlight key findings, recommendations, and gaps in research and practice identified through a scoping study of recent reviews in breast and cervical cancer in LMICs. METHODS: We conducted a scoping study based on the six-stage framework of Arskey and O'Malley. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, and CINAHL with the following inclusion criteria: 1) published between 2005-February 2015, 2) focused on breast or cervical cancer 3) focused on LMIC, 4) review article, and 5) published in English. RESULTS: Through our systematic search, 63 out of the 94 identified cervical cancer reviews met our selection criteria and 36 of the 54 in breast cancer. Cervical cancer reviews were more likely to focus upon prevention and screening, while breast cancer reviews were more likely to focus upon treatment and survivorship. Few of the breast cancer reviews referenced research and data from LMICs themselves; cervical cancer reviews were more likely to do so. Most reviews did not include elements of the PRISMA checklist. CONCLUSION: Overall, a limited evidence base supports breast and cervical cancer control in LMICs. Further breast and cervical cancer prevention and control studies are necessary in LMICs.

Contemporary public health professionals must address the health needs of a diverse population with constrained budgets and shrinking funds. Economic evaluation contributes to evidence-based decision making by helping the public health community identify, measure, and compare activities with the necessary impact, scalability, and sustainability to optimize population health. Asking "how do investments in public health strategies influence or offset the need for downstream spending on medical care and/or social services?" is important when making decisions about resource allocation and scaling of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer places a substantial economic burden on our healthcare system. The three-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series is a cost-effective intervention to prevent HPV infection and resultant cervical cancer. Despite its efficacy, completion rates are low in young women aged 18 through 26 years. 1-2-3 Pap is a video intervention tested and proven to increase HPV vaccination completion rates. PURPOSE: To provide the full scope of available evidence for 1-2-3 Pap, this study adds economic evidence to the intervention's efficacy. This study tested the economies of scale hypothesis that the cost of 1-2-3 Pap intervention per number of completed HPV vaccine series would decrease when offered to more women in the target population. METHODS: Using cost and efficacy data from the Rural Cancer Prevention Center, a cost analysis was done through a hypothetical adaptation scenario in rural Kentucky. RESULTS: Assuming the same success rate as in the efficacy study, the 1-2-3 Pap adaptation scenario would cover 1000 additional women aged 18 through 26 years (344 in efficacy study; 1346 in adaptation scenario), and almost three times as many completed series (130 in efficacy study; 412 in adaptation scenario) as in the original 1-2-3 Pap efficacy study. IMPLICATIONS: Determination of the costs of implementing 1-2-3 Pap is vital for program expansion. This study provides practitioners and decision makers with objective measures for scalability.

West Africa is experiencing its first epidemic of Ebola virus disease (Ebola). As of February 9, Liberia has reported 8,864 Ebola cases, of which 3,147 were laboratory-confirmed. Beginning in August 2014, the Liberia Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW), supported by CDC, the World Health Organization (WHO), and others, began systematically investigating and responding to Ebola outbreaks in remote areas. Because many of these areas lacked mobile telephone service, easy road access, and basic infrastructure, flexible and targeted interventions often were required. Development of a national strategy for the Rapid Isolation and Treatment of Ebola (RITE) began in early October. The strategy focuses on enhancing capacity of county health teams (CHT) to investigate outbreaks in remote areas and lead tailored responses through effective and efficient coordination of technical and operational assistance from the MOHSW central level and international partners. To measure improvements in response indicators and outcomes over time, data from investigations of 12 of 15 outbreaks in remote areas with illness onset dates of index cases during July 16-November 20, 2014, were analyzed. The times to initial outbreak alerts and durations of the outbreaks declined over that period while the proportions of patients who were isolated and treated increased. At the same time, the case-fatality rate in each outbreak declined. Implementation of strategies, such as RITE, to rapidly respond to rural outbreaks of Ebola through coordinated and tailored responses can successfullyreduce transmission and improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To describe student and faculty attitudes towards and adherence to nonpharmaceutical control measures during the first-known university outbreak of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1). METHODS: Preferred information sources, control measure adherence and likelihood of adherence during future outbreaks, and perceived illness risk, were explored through focus groups and patient interviews. RESULTS: We conducted 7 focus groups (N=48) and 9 patient interviews. Measures (eg, hand hygiene, self-isolation while ill) were initially heeded. Limited information regarding A(H1N1) pdm09, insufficient understanding of university decisions, and perceived university alert overuse led to reports that future outbreaks would be regarded less seriously. CONCLUSIONS: Reported concern and commitment to recommendations decreased rapidly. Initial university messaging and response was critical in shaping participants' later perceptions.

CONTEXT: Health professionals who can bridge the gap between public health and clinical medicine are needed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epidemiology Elective Program (EEP) offers a rotation in public health for medical and veterinary students that provides an introduction to public health, preventive medicine, and the principles of applied epidemiology through real-world, hands-on experiential learning. OBJECTIVE: To describe EEP, including its role in the integration of medicine and public health, and career paths for those who subsequently have enrolled in the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS). DESIGN: A review of files of EEP students participating June 1975 to May 2012 and EIS files to determine which EEP participants subsequently enrolled in EIS and their current employment. RESULTS: During January 1975 to May 2012, a total of 1548 students participated in EEP. Six hundred thirty-eight (41.2%) EEP students participated in field-based epidemic-assistance investigations. Among 187 students completing an exit survey implemented during 2007, a total of 175 (93.6%) indicated an increased understanding or competence in applied epidemiology and public health, and 98 (52.4%) indicated that they would apply to EIS. Among the 165 (10.7%) who enrolled in and completed EIS by July 2012, 106 (64.2%) are currently employed in public health and 65 (39.4%) are board-certified in preventive medicine, board eligible, or currently enrolled in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Preventive Medicine Residency or Fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: The CDC Epidemiology Elective Program offers opportunities for medical and veterinary students to participate in real-world public health learning activities. The Epidemiology Elective Program provides increased understanding and competence in applied epidemiology, provides students with opportunities to learn about population health and health care problems and the tools to help them bridge the gap between clinical medicine and public health, and serves as a source for EIS and other public health-related training and careers.

CONTEXT: Studies characterizing the public health workforce are needed for providing the evidence on which to base planning and policy decision making both for workforce staffing and for addressing uncertainties regarding organizing, financing, and delivering effective public health strategies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is leading the enumeration of the US public health workforce with an initial focus on CDC as the leading federal public health agency. OBJECTIVE: To characterize CDC's workforce, assess retirement eligibility and potential staff losses, and contribute these data as the federal component of national enumeration efforts. METHODS: Two sources containing data related to CDC employees were analyzed. CDC's workforce was characterized by using data elements recommended for public health workforce enumeration and categorized the occupations of CDC staff into 15 standard occupational classifications by using position titles. Retirement eligibility and potential staffing losses were analyzed by using 1-, 3-, and 5-year increments and compared these data across occupational classifications to determine the future impact of potential loss of workforce. RESULTS: As of the first quarter of calendar year 2012, a total 11 223 persons were working at CDC; 10 316 were civil servants, and 907 were Commissioned Corps officers. Women accounted for 61%. Public health managers, laboratory workers, and administrative-clerical staff comprised the top 3 most common occupational classifications among CDC staff. Sixteen percent of the workforce was eligible to retire by December 2012, and more than 30% will be eligible to retire by December 2017. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first characterization of CDC's workforce and provides an evidence base upon which to develop policies for ensuring an ongoing ability to fulfill the CDC mission of maintaining and strengthening the public's health. Establishing a system for continually monitoring the public health workforce will support future efforts in understanding workforce shortages, capacity, and effectiveness; projecting trends; and initiating policies.

Workforce enumeration is the foundation for identifying workforce | needs. In 2000, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) | sponsored an enumeration of the public | health workforce (HRSA, 2000), but since | then, no comprehensive enumeration has occurred. The Centers for Disease Control and | Prevention (CDC) and HRSA are now collaborating on an effort to determine the number and composition of the U.S. workforce at the | federal, state, and local levels.

Many public health agencies monitor population health using syndromic surveillance, generally employing information from emergency department (ED) visit records. When combined with other information, objective evidence of fever may enhance the accuracy with which surveillance systems detect syndromes of interest, such as influenza-like illness. This study found that patient chief complaint of self-reported fever was more readily available in ED records than measured temperature and that the majority of patients with an elevated temperature recorded also self-reported fever. Due to its currently limited availability, we conclude that measured temperature is likely to add little value to self-reported fever in syndromic surveillance for febrile illness using ED records.

TO THE EDITOR: In response to the emergence of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus (1), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued interim guidance for preventing spread of the pandemic virus in schools. Initial guidance recommended that dismissal of students be considered for schools with confirmed cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 infection. The guidance was subsequently revised to recommend monitoring for respiratory illness and exclusion of ill students until they were noninfectious, rather than dismissal.

TO THE EDITOR: On April 28, 2009, the Chicago Department of Public Health received notification of 1 student at an elementary school with a probable pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus infection; the infection was subsequently laboratory confirmed. This case was one of the first pandemic (H1N1) 2009 cases in Chicago. To prevent transmission of influenza and with guidance from the Chicago Department of Public Health, the school closed on April 29; it reopened on May 6 after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised its recommendations (1). We conducted an investigation to evaluate psychosocial and economic effects of the school closure on the students' families and to assess whether students complied with mitigation recommendations. In the early pandemic, Chicago's number of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 cases was one of the highest in the United States (2).

We investigated the first documented university outbreak of the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) to identify factors associated with disease transmission. An online student survey was administered to assess risk factors for influenza-like illness (ILI), defined as fever with cough or sore throat. Of 6049 survey respondents, 567 (9%) experienced ILI during 27 March to 9 May 2009. Studying with an ill contact (adjusted risk ratios [aRR], 1.29; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.01-1.65) and caring for an ill contact (aRR, 1.51; CI, 1.14-2.01) any time during 27 March to 9 May were predictors for ILI. Respondents reported that 680 (6%) of 11,411 housemates were ill; living with an ill housemate was a predictor for ILI (RR, 1.38; CI, 1.04-1.83). Close contact or prolonged exposures to ill persons were likely associated with experiencing ILI. Self-protective measures should be promoted in university populations to mitigate transmission.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as home isolation, social distancing, and infection control measures, are recommended by public health agencies as strategies to mitigate transmission during influenza pandemics. However, NPI implementation has rarely been studied in large populations. During an outbreak of 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) virus infection at a large public university in April 2009, an online survey was conducted among students, faculty, and staff to assess knowledge of and adherence to university-recommended NPI. Although 3924 (65%) of 6049 student respondents and 1057 (74%) of 1401 faculty respondents reported increased use of self-protective NPI, such as hand washing, only 27 (6.4%) of 423 students and 5 (8.6%) of 58 faculty with acute respiratory infection (ARI) reported staying home while ill. Nearly one-half (46%) of student respondents, including 44.7% of those with ARI, attended social events. Results indicate a need for efforts to increase compliance with home isolation and social distancing measures.

BACKGROUND: In late April 2009, the first documented 2009 pandemic influenza A (pH1N1) virus infection outbreak in a university setting occurred in Delaware, with large numbers of students presenting with respiratory illness. At the time of this investigation, little was known about the severity of illness, effectiveness of the vaccine, or transmission factors of pH1N1 virus infection. We characterized illness, determined the impact of this outbreak, and examined factors associated with transmission. METHODS: Health clinic records were reviewed. An online survey was administered to all students, staff, and faculty to assess influenza-like illness (ILI), defined as documented or subjective fever with cough or sore throat. RESULTS: From 26 April-2 May 2009, the health clinic experienced a sharp increase in visits for respiratory illness, with 1080 such visits among a total of 1430 student visits, and then a return to baseline visit levels within 2 weeks. More than 500 courses of oseltamivir were distributed, and 24 cases of influenza A (pH1N1) virus infection were confirmed. Of 29,000 university students and faculty/staff, 7450 (30%) responded to the survey. ILI was reported by 604 (10%) of the students and 73 (5%) of the faculty/staff. Travel to Mexico (relative risk [RR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-4.7) and participation in "Greek Week" activities (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.8) were associated with ILI. Recipients of the 2008-2009 seasonal influenza vaccine had the same risk of ILI as nonrecipients (RR, 1.0). Four (3%) of the students with ILI were hospitalized; there were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: pH1N1 spread rapidly through the University of Delaware community with a surge in illness over a 2-week period. Although initial cases appear to be associated with travel to Mexico, a rapid increase in cases was likely facilitated by increased student interactions during Greek Week. No protective effect from receiving seasonal influenza vaccine was identified. Although severe illness was rare, the outbreak caused a substantial burden and challenge to the university health care system. Preparedness efforts in universities and similar settings should include enhancing health care surge capacity.