INTRODUCTION: Local health departments (LHDs) are increasingly using national standards to meet the challenges presented by the complex environments in which these agencies operate. Local boards of health (LBoHs) might play an instrumental role in improving LHDs' engagement in activities to meet these standards. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of LBoH performance of governance functions on LHDs having a current (completed within 5 years) community health assessment (CHA), community health improvement plan (CHIP), strategic plan, and level of engagement in the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) accreditation program. METHODS: Binary and multinomial logistic regression models were used to analyze linked data from 329 LHDs participating in both the 2015 Local Board of Health Survey and the 2016 National Profile of LHDs Survey. RESULTS: Higher performance of LBoH governance functions, measured by an overall scale of LBoH taxonomy consisting of 60 items, had a significant positive effect on LHDs having completed CHA (P < .001), CHIP (P = .01), and strategic plan (P < .001). LHDs operating in communities with a higher score on the overall scale of LBoH taxonomy had significantly higher odds (P = .03) of having higher level of participation in the PHAB national voluntary accreditation program-that is, being accredited, having submitted application for accreditation, or being in the e-PHAB system (eg, by submitting a letter of intent). CONCLUSIONS: LBoHs serve as governance bodies for roughly 71% of LHDs and can play a significant role in encouraging LHDs' participation in these practices. That positive influence of LBoHs can be seen more clearly if the complexity and richness of LBoH governance functions and other characteristics are measured appropriately. The study findings suggest that LBoHs are a significant component of the public health system in the United States, having positive influence on LHDs having a CHA, CHIP, strategic plan, and participation in 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.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a local board of health (LBoH) classification scheme and empirical definitions to provide a coherent framework for describing variation in the LBoHs. METHODS: This study is based on data from the 2015 Local Board of Health Survey, conducted among a nationally representative sample of local health department administrators, with 394 responses. The classification development consisted of the following steps: (1) theoretically guided initial domain development, (2) mapping of the survey variables to the proposed domains, (3) data reduction using principal component analysis and group consensus, and (4) scale development and testing for internal consistency. RESULTS: The final classification scheme included 60 items across 6 governance function domains and an additional domain-LBoH characteristics and strengths, such as meeting frequency, composition, and diversity of information sources. Application of this classification strongly supports the premise that LBoHs differ in their performance of governance functions and in other characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The LBoH taxonomy provides an empirically tested standardized tool for classifying LBoHs from the viewpoint of local health department administrators. Future studies can use this taxonomy to better characterize the impact of LBoHs.

INTRODUCTION: The scope of local health department (LHD) involvement in providing personal healthcare services versus population-based services has been debated for decades. A 2012 IOM report suggests that LHDs should gradually withdraw from providing personal healthcare services. The purpose of this study is to assess the level of LHD involvement in provision of personal healthcare services during 2008-2013 and examine the association between provision of personal healthcare services and per capita public health expenditures. METHODS: Data are from the 2013 survey of LHDs and Area Health Resource Files. The number, ratio, and share of revenue from personal healthcare services were estimated. Both linear and panel fixed effects models were used to examine the association between provision of personal healthcare services and per capita public health expenditures. Data were analyzed in 2014. RESULTS: The mean number of personal healthcare services provided by LHDs did not change significantly in 2008-2013. Overall, personal services constituted 28% of total service items. The share of revenue from personal services increased from 16.8% in 2008 to 20.3% in 2013. Results from the fixed effect panel models show a positive association between personal healthcare services' share of revenue and per capita expenditures (b=0.57, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A lower share of revenue from personal healthcare services is associated with lower per capita expenditures. LHDs, especially those serving <25,000 people, are highly dependent on personal healthcare revenue to sustain per capita expenditures. LHDs may need to consider strategies to replace lost revenue from discontinuing provision of personal healthcare services.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, quality improvement (QI) has become a major focus in advancing the goal of improving performance of local health departments (LHDs). However, limited empirical data exists on the current implementation of QI initiatives in LHDs and factors associated with adoption of QI initiatives. OBJECTIVES: (1) To examine the current implementation of QI implementation initiatives by LHDs and (2) to identify factors contributing to LHDs' decision to implement QI initiatives. METHODS: In this study, a novel theoretical framework based on analysis of QI in medicine was applied to analyze QI by LHDs. LHDs' QI adoption was assessed by the number of formal QI projects reported by LHDs that responded to module 1 of the 2010 National Profile of Local Health Department Study (Profile Study) conducted by the National Association of County & City Health Officials. The Profile Study data were merged with data from the Health Resources and Services Administration's Area Resource Files and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials' 2010 Survey. Logistic regression analyses were conducted using Stata 11 SVY procedure to account for the complex sampling design. RESULTS: The Profile Study data indicated that about 73% of the LHDs reported implementing 1 or more QI projects. LHDs with large jurisdiction population (>50 000), higher per capita public health expenditure, a designated QI staff member, or prior participation in performance improvement programs were more likely to have undertaken QI initiatives. CONCLUSION: According to the Profile Study, more than a quarter of LHDs surveyed did not report implementing any formal QI projects. Greater investments in QI programs and designation of QI staff can be effective strategies to promote QI adoption. The validity of the definition of a formal QI project needs to be established. More research to identify the barriers to successful QI implementation at LHDs is also needed.

BACKGROUND: Local health departments (LHDs) can play an important role in linking people to personal health services and ensuring the provision of health care when it is otherwise unavailable. However, the extent to which LHDs are involved in ensuring access to health care in its jurisdictions is not well known. PURPOSE: To provide nationally representative estimates of LHD involvement in specific activities to ensure access to healthcare services and to assess their association with macro-environment/community and LHD capacity and process characteristics. METHODS: Data used were from the 2010 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study, Area Resource Files, and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials' 2010 Profile of State Public Health Agencies Survey. Data were analyzed in 2012. RESULTS: Approximately 66.0% of LHDs conducted activities to ensure access to medical care, 45.9% to dental care, and 32.0% to behavioral health care. About 28% of LHDs had not conducted activities to ensure access to health care in their jurisdictions in 2010. LHDs with higher per capita expenditures and larger jurisdiction population sizes were more likely to provide access to care services (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in LHD engagement in activities to ensure access to care. Differences in LHD capacity and the needs of the communities in which they are located may account for this variation. Further research is needed to determine whether this variation is associated with adverse population health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES:To examine the relationship between county-level measures of social determinants and use of preventive care among US adults with diagnosed diabetes. To inform future diabetes prevention strategies. METHODS: Data are from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2004 and 2005 surveys, the National Diabetes Surveillance System, and the Area Resource File. Use of diabetes care services was defined by self-reported receipt of 7 preventive care services. Our study sample included 46 806 respondents with self-reported diagnosed diabetes. Multilevel models were run to assess the association between county-level characteristics and receipt of each of the 7 preventive diabetes care service after controlling for characteristics of individuals. Results were considered significant if P < .05. RESULTS: Controlling for individual-level characteristics, our analyses showed that 7 of the 8 county-level factors examined were significantly associated with use of 1 or more preventive diabetes care services. For example, people with diabetes living in a county with a high uninsurance rate were less likely to have an influenza vaccination, visit a doctor for diabetes care, have an A1c test, or a foot examination; people with diabetes living in a county with a high physician density were more likely to have an A1c test, foot examination, or an eye examination; and people with diabetes living in a county with more people with less than high-school education were less likely to have influenza vaccination, pneumococcal vaccination, or self-care education (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Many of the county-level factors examined in this study were found to be significantly associated with use of preventive diabetes care services. County policy makers may need to consider local circumstances to address the disparities in use of these services.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare the capacity of local health departments (LHDs) to perform 10 essential public health services (EPHS) for obesity control in 2005 and 2008, and explore factors associated with provision of these services. METHODS: The data for this study were drawn from the 2005 and 2008 National Profile of Local Health Department surveys, conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Data were analyzed in SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina). RESULTS: The proportion of LHDs that reported that they do not provide any of the EPHS for obesity control decreased from 27.9% in 2005 to 17.0% in 2008. In both 2005 and 2008, the 2 most frequently provided EPHS for obesity control by LHDs were informing, educating, and empowering the people (EPHS 3) and linking people to needed personal health services (EPHS 7). The 2 least frequently provided services were enforcing laws and regulations (EPHS 6) and conducting research (EPHS 10). On average, LHDs provided 3.05 EPHS in 2005 and 3.69 EPHS in 2008. Multiple logistic regression results show that LHDs with larger jurisdiction population, with a local governance, and those that have completed a community health improvement plan were more likely to provide more of the EPHS for obesity (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The provision of the 10 EPHS for obesity control by LHDs remains low. Local health departments need more assistance and resources to expand performance of EPHS for obesity control. Future studies are needed to evaluate and promote LHD capacity to deliver evidence-based strategies for obesity control in local communities.