A model for use by local public health departments to evaluate pandemic influenza plans

The events of the 1990's and early 2000's demonstrated the need for effective planning and response to natural and man-made disasters. One of those potential natural disasters is pandemic flu. Once defined, the CDC stated that program, or plan, effectiveness is improved through the process of program evaluation. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999) Program evaluation should be accomplished not only periodically, but in the course of routine administration of the program. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999) Accomplishing this task for a "rare, but significant event" is challenging. (Herbold, John R., PhD., 2008) To address this challenge, the RAND Corporation (under contract to the CDC) developed the "Facilitated Look-Backs" approach that was tested and validated at the state level. (Aledort et al., 2006).^ Nevertheless, no comprehensive and generally applicable pandemic influenza program evaluation tool or model is readily found for use at the local public health department level. This project developed such a model based on the "Facilitated Look-Backs" approach developed by RAND Corporation. (Aledort et al., 2006) Modifications to the RAND model included stakeholder additions, inclusion of all six CDC program evaluation steps, and suggestions for incorporating pandemic flu response plans in seasonal flu management implementation. Feedback on the model was then obtained from three LPHD's—one rural, one suburban, and one urban. These recommendations were incorporated into the final model. Feedback from the sites also supported the assumption that this model promotes the effective and efficient evaluation of both pandemic flu and seasonal flu response by reducing redundant evaluations of pandemic flu plans, seasonal flu plans, and funding requirement accountability. Site feedback also demonstrated that the model is comprehensive and flexible, so it can be adapted and applied to different LPHD needs and settings. It also stimulates evaluation of the major issues associated with pandemic flu planning. ^ The next phase in evaluating this model should be to apply it in a program evaluation of one or more LPHD's seasonal flu response that incorporates pandemic flu response plans.^

America's state health departments and the enhancement of health communication through podcasting

Perhaps it was foreshadowing the influence emerging technologies would have on health when the term "podcast" beat out "bird flu" for the 2005 word of the year, an honor given by The New Oxford American Dictionary. From medical school courses to medical journal summaries, podcasting has found a niche in the health field and with studies showing a high proportion of people using the Internet to seek health information, it is imperative that the online information be accurate and easily accessible. With the responsibility of health departments to reach out to their respective communities with effective health communication strategies, this study assessed the proportion of 50 states' and the District of Columbia's health departments utilizing podcasting as a tool for health communication. Additionally, to assess any trends, the prevalence of podcasting was compared to select state demographic characteristics (age, sex, and median income), the organization of the health department (freestanding or super-agency), and the respective United Health Foundation 2007 health ranking. ^ Prevalence data were collected from each state health department's website to find evidence of podcasting to any extent. If a podcast was present, characteristics including creator, release frequency, and transcript were further assessed. The study found that 51% (26/51) of all health departments were utilizing podcasts in some capacity and almost 20% (5/26) of these had created their own podcasts. The most common use of podcasting was to link to outside podcast resources, most notably, the Centers for Disease Control's podcast series. No significant associations were found between the state-specific variables and the podcasting outcomes; however, higher percentages of young adults in some states suggest potential podcasting opportunities for targeting these known podcast users with age-specific health messages. Another recommendation is a future assessment of local health departments' use of podcasting as their smaller, more defined target audiences may be a more efficient use of podcasting as a health communication tool. Additionally, there is a need for evaluations of podcasts' overall effectiveness as a health communication tool to (1) reach a target audience; and (2) convey a specific health message. In conclusion, the findings from this project illuminate the extent of podcast influence in states' and the District of Columbia's health departments as a health communication tool; however evaluations of effectiveness are imperative for future studies.^