The relationship between county variation in macro contextual factors and the performance of public health practice in regional public health systems in Nebraska

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 132-140

  Chen, Li Wu ^a   Xu, Liyan ^a   Yu, Fang ^a   Jacobson, Janelle ^a   Roberts, Sara ^b   Palm, David ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

^b KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT   (United States)

^c Office of Community Health and Performance Management   (United States)

Author keywords

county variation in macro context; performance of public health practice; regional local health departments

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; MALE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; STANDARD; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

FEMALE; HUMANS; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; MALE; NEBRASKA; PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION; PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT;

EID: 84856764395     PISSN: 10784659     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3182294e66     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. National Association of City and County Health Officials. 2008 National Profile of Local Health Departments.Washington, DC: National Association of City and County Health Officials; 2008.
2. Koh H, Elqura L, Judge C, Stoto M. Regionalization of local public health systems in the era of preparedness. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:205-218.
3. Stoto M. Regionalization in local public health systems: variation in rationale, implementation, and impact on public health preparedness. Public Health Rep. 2008;123(4):441-449.
4. United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov./Accessed June 2, 2011.
5. Berkowitz B. Rural public health service delivery: Promising new directions. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(10):1678-1681.
6. Johnson R. Rural Public Health: Issues and Considerations. A Report to the Secretary, US Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000. http://www.hrsa.gov/ advisorycommittees/rural/publichealthfeb2000.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2011.
7. Handler A, Issel M, Turnock B. A conceptual framework to measure performance of the public health system.AmJ Public Health. 2001;91(8):1235-1239.
8. Donabedian A. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring. Vol 1: The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1980.
9. Mays GP, McHugh MC, Shim K, et al. Institutional and economic determinants of public health system performance. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(3):523-531.
10. Kennedy V. A study of local public health performance in Texas. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2003;9(3):183-187.
11. Hajat A, Cilenti D, Harrison LM, et al. What predicts local public health agency performance improvement? a pilot study in North Carolina. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15(2):E22-E33.
12. Turnock BJ,Handler A, MillerCA. Core function-related local public health practice effectiveness. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1998;4(5):26-32.
13. Suen J, Magruder C. National profile: Overview of capabilities and core functions of local public health jurisdictions in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and 3 U.S. territories, 2000-2002. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2004;10(1):2-12.
14. Miller CA, Richards TB, Davis SM, et al. Validation of a screening survey to assess local public health performance. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1995;1(1):63-71.
15. Institute of Medicine. Committee on the Study of the Future of Public Health. The Future of Public Health.Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1988.