Patterns and Predictors of Local Health Department Accreditation in Missouri
Background: The Healthy People 2020 goal for the public health system is “to ensure that Federal, State, Tribal, and local health agencies have the necessary infrastructure to effectively provide essential public health services.” To address this goal, Missouri established the first statewide, volun...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Others |
| Published: |
Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dc.etsu.edu/etsu-works/6866 https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8118&context=etsu-works |
| Summary: | Background: The Healthy People 2020 goal for the public health system is “to ensure that Federal, State, Tribal, and local health agencies have the necessary infrastructure to effectively provide essential public health services.” To address this goal, Missouri established the first statewide, voluntary accreditation program of local health departments (LHDs) and began accrediting the LHDs in 2003. The purpose of this study was to identify organizational, structural, and workforce factors related to accreditation status of LHDs in Missouri.
Methods: Using data from the National Association of County & City Health Officials (2010) and the Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services (2012), binary logistic regression analysis was performed to predict accreditation status of LHDs. Likelihood ratio tests were used to examine whether the addition of each predictor added significantly to the model compared with a model including total revenues alone. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs), 95% confidence intervals, the significance level of the likelihood ratio test, and the overall Nagelkerke pseudo-R2 for each model are reported.
Results: Having a community health improvement plan (aOR = 6.2), a strategic plan (aOR = 7.9), evaluating programs (aOR = 3.6), being in a region with a high proportion of accredited LHDs (aOR = 5.5), and participating in multijurisdictional collaborations (aOR = 6.4) all increased the likelihood of accreditation. Barriers of time (aOR = 0.1) and cost (aOR = 0.3) were negatively associated with accreditation.
Conclusions: Accredited LHDs were more likely to have completed the prerequisites for accreditation and collaborate with other LHDs. These activities help LHDs meet the accreditation standards. In addition, with shrinking budgets, LHDs will need additional financial and technical support to achieve accreditation. Assisting LHDs to find ways to increase the staff is important. Through collaborations with other LHDs, regional or multicounty positions can be created. Also collaborations with universities, specifically colleges or schools of public health, can provide opportunities for internships at LHDs giving practical experience while providing important assistance to LHDs. |
|---|