Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

State, Territorial, and Local Health Departments’ Reporting of Partnership Strength Before and After the H1N1 Response

  • Karen E. Kun (a1), John Zimmerman (a2), Dale A. Rose (a1) and Stephanie Rubel (a1)
Abstract
AbstractIntroduction

Research has shown that partnerships between public health agencies, service providers, and other key stakeholders can expand resources and facilitate focus on community health issues more effectively than can any agency or organization acting alone. There is, however, little empirical evidence drawn from actual public health emergency responses to support this claim. The US response to novel influenza A (H1N1) virus provided the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the opportunity to explore whether, and the extent to which, state, local and territorial health departments strengthened partnerships with key partner agencies and sectors.

Methods

Participants included the CDC Public Health Emergency Response (PHER) grantees comprised of 62 state, territorial and local health departments. PHER grantees completed an assessment instrument in May 2011, including questions asking them to rate their partnership strength (on a four-point ordinal scale) with six types of partners before and after the H1N1 response. Grantees additionally reported if and how PHER funding contributed to enhancing the strength of these partnerships.

Results

Sixty-one PHER grantees (61/62, 98%) completed the assessment instrument's partnerships section. PHER grantees reported that their partnerships with retail pharmacies were most strengthened (mean increase = 1.11 (on a four-point ordinal scale), SD = .82). This was followed by schools (K-12) (mean increase = .90, SD = .58); private medical providers (mean increase = .81, SD = .68); immunization authorities (mean increase = .80, SD = .61); main education authorities (mean increase = .75, SD = .68); and businesses (mean increase = .74, SD = .61). Mean PHER grantee increases in the strength of each partner type were statistically significant for all partner types (P < .01). Grantees reported that PHER funding contributed to enhancing the strength of their partnerships with schools most frequently (46/46, 100%), and businesses least frequently (31/37, 83.8%).

Conclusions

This inquiry provides evidence that state, territorial, and local health department partnerships with key sectors, agencies, and programs were strengthened after the H1N1 response. It further demonstrates that the CDC's PHER funding contributed to the health departments’ reports of increased partnership strength.

KunK, ZimmermanJ, RoseD, RubelS. State, Territorial, and Local Health Departments’ Reporting of Partnership Strength Before and After the H1N1 Response. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(6):1-6.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Correspondence: Dale A. Rose, PhD Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Mailstop D18, Atlanta, GA 30333 USA E-mail ido8@cdc.gov
References
Hide All
1. 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub L. No 111-32, 123 Stat. 1885 (June 24, 2009).
2.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Public Health Emergency Response (PHER) Grant (2009-2010) Web site. http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/pher.htm. Accessed October 31, 2011.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, Public Health Emergency Response (PHER). CDC-RFA-TP09-902-2009-H1N1. http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/documents/PHER_Phase_I_guidance_July_8_2009.pdf. Published Jul 9, 2009. Accessed October 31, 2011.
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, Public Health Emergency Response (PHER) Phase II, Funding for Vaccination Campaign Planning. Funding Opportunity Number CDC-RFA-TP09-90201-H1N109. http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/documents/PHER_Phase_II_final_FOA_August_6_2009.pdf. Published August 6, 2009. Accessed October 31, 2011.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, Public Health Emergency Response (PHER) Phase III, Funding for Implementation of the Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza Vaccination Campaign. Funding Opportunity Number CDC-RFA-TP09-90202-H1N109. http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/documents/PHER_Phase_III_final_guidance_August_27_2009.pdf. Published August 27, 2009. Accessed October 31, 2011.
6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, Public Health Emergency Response (PHER) Grant Phase IV Funding, Completion of the Pandemic (H1N1) 2009-2010 Influenza Vaccination Campaign. Funding Opportunity Number CDC-RFA-TP09-90203-H1N109. http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/documents/TIMS-09-90202-H1N109_PhaseIV_FINALAmendment.pdf. Amended February 1, 2010. Accessed October 31, 2011.
7.Butterfoss F. Coalitions and Partnerships in Community Health. San Francisco, CA, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2007, Preface, xvii.
8. Committee on Private-Public Sector Collaboration to Enhance Community Disaster, Resilience, National Research Council. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13028.html. Published 2011. Accessed April 15, 2012.
9.Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, et al. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(1-2):127-150.
10.Gurwitch RH, Pfefferbaum B, Montgomery JM, et al. Building Community Resilience for Children and Families. Oklahoma City, OK: Terrorism and Disaster Center at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; 2007.
11.Pfefferbaum RL, Reissman DB, Pfefferbaum B, et al. Factors in the development of community resilience to disasters. In: Blumenfield M, Ursano, RJ, eds, Intervention and Resilience After Mass Trauma. New York City, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2008:49-68.
12.Elrod C, Hamblen J, Norris F. Challenges in implementing disaster mental health programs: State program directors’ perspectives. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2006;604:152-170.
13.Norris F, Watson P, Hamblen J, Pfefferbaum B. Provider perspectives on disaster mental health services in Oklahoma City. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2005;10(1-2):649-661.
14.Norris F, Hamblen J, Watson P, et al. Toward understanding and creating systems of post-disaster care: a case study of New York's response to the World Trade Center disaster. In: Ritchie EC, Watson P, and Friedman M, eds, Interventions Following Mass Violence and Disasters: Strategies for Mental Health Practices. New York City, NY, USA: Guilford Press; 2006:343-364.
15.Rosenfeld LA, Etkind P, Grasso A, et al. Extending the reach: local health department collaboration with community pharmacies in Palm Beach County, Florida for H1N1 influenza pandemic response. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2011;17(5):439-448.
16.Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.
17.Foster-Fishman PG, Berkowitz SL, Lounsbury DW, et al. Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. Am J Community Psychol. 2001;29(2):241-261.
18. Coalitions Work, LLC. Coalition Effectiveness Inventory. http://coalitionswork.com/resources/tools. Published 2007. Accessed November 26, 2011.
19.Mattessich PW, Murray-Close M, Monsey B. Collaboration: What Makes It Work, 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN, USA: Wilder Publishing Center, Amherst H. Wilder Foundation; 2001.
20.Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. Wilder Collaborative Factors Inventory. http://www.wilder.org/Wilder-Research/Pages/default.aspx. Published 2008. Accessed November 26, 2011.
21. The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. Partnerships Analysis Tool. http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/Publications/VicHealth-General-Publications/Partnerships-Analysis-Tool.aspx. Published 2011. Accessed November 26, 2011.
22. Center for the Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health, New York Academy of Medicine. The Partnership Self-Assessment Tool. http://partnershiptool.net. Published 2006. Updated 2007. Accessed November 26, 2011.
23. University of Wisconsin-Extension-Cooperative Extension, Program Development and Evaluation Unit. Community Group Member Survey. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evaldocs.html. Published 1997. Accessed November 26 2011.
24.Pratt CC, McGuigan WM, Katzev AR. Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation. 2000;21(3):341-350.
25.Griner Hill L, Betz DL. Revisiting the Retrospective Pretest. American Journal of Evaluation. 2005;26:501-517.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
  • ISSN: 1049-023X
  • EISSN: 1945-1938
  • URL: /core/journals/prehospital-and-disaster-medicine
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 8 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 179 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.