The Relationship of Policymaking and Networking Characteristics among Leaders of Large Urban Health Departments.

Jonathon P Leider, Brian C Castrucci, Jenine K Harris, Shelley Hearne
Author Information
  1. Jonathon P Leider: Beaumont Foundation, 7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1310E Bethesda, Maryland, MD 20814, USA. leider@gmail.com.
  2. Brian C Castrucci: Beaumont Foundation, 7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1310E Bethesda, Maryland, MD 20814, USA. castrucci@debeaumont.org.
  3. Jenine K Harris: Brown School, Center for Public Health Systems Science, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, MO 63130, USA. harrisj@wustl.edu.
  4. Shelley Hearne: Director, Big Cities Health Coalition, National Association of County and City Health Officials, 1100 17th Street, NW, Seventh Floor, Washington, DC 20036, USA. shearne@naccho.org.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The relationship between policy networks and policy development among local health departments (LHDs) is a growing area of interest to public health practitioners and researchers alike. In this study, we examine policy activity and ties between public health leadership across large urban health departments.
METHODS: This study uses data from a national profile of local health departments as well as responses from a survey sent to three staff members (local health official, chief of policy, chief science officer) in each of 16 urban health departments in the United States. Network questions related to frequency of contact with health department personnel in other cities. Using exponential random graph models, network density and centrality were examined, as were patterns of communication among those working on several policy areas using exponential random graph models.
RESULTS: All 16 LHDs were active in communicating about chronic disease as well as about use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (ATOD). Connectedness was highest among local health officials (density = .55), and slightly lower for chief science officers (d = .33) and chiefs of policy (d = .29). After accounting for organizational characteristics, policy homophily (i.e., when two network members match on a single characteristic) and tenure were the most significant predictors of formation of network ties.
CONCLUSION: Networking across health departments has the potential for accelerating the adoption of public health policies. This study suggests similar policy interests and formation of connections among senior leadership can potentially drive greater connectedness among other staff.

Keywords

References

  1. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Nov;47(5 Suppl 3):S337-43 [PMID: 25439254]
  2. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2012 Mar-Apr;18(2):186-9 [PMID: 22286289]
  3. Soc Sci Med. 2008 Dec;67(11):1669-78 [PMID: 18722038]
  4. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2013 Mar-Apr;19(2):E1-8 [PMID: 23358301]
  5. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 Jan-Feb;21 Suppl 1:S20-3 [PMID: 25423052]
  6. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 Jan-Feb;21 Suppl 1:S14-9 [PMID: 25423051]
  7. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010 Mar-Apr;16(2):110-7 [PMID: 20150791]
  8. Am J Public Health. 2005 Feb;95(2):338-44 [PMID: 15671473]
  9. Public Health Rep. 2004 May-Jun;119(3):311-21 [PMID: 15158110]
  10. Am J Prev Med. 2013 May;44(5):561-2 [PMID: 23597823]
  11. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 Nov-Dec;21 Suppl 6:S13-27 [PMID: 26422482]
  12. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010 Nov;7(6):A116 [PMID: 20950523]
  13. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Nov;47(5 Suppl 3):S331-6 [PMID: 25439253]
  14. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 Jan-Feb;21 Suppl 1:S93-4 [PMID: 25423063]
  15. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2012 Sep-Oct;18(5):402-11 [PMID: 22836530]
  16. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010 Mar-Apr;16(2):E17-28 [PMID: 20150785]
  17. Milbank Q. 2010 Mar;88(1):81-111 [PMID: 20377759]
  18. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2013 May-Jun;19(3):E20-4 [PMID: 23392206]
  19. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 May;30(5):879-87 [PMID: 21555471]
  20. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Mar;44(3):247-53 [PMID: 23415121]
  21. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 Jan-Feb;21 Suppl 1:S66-75 [PMID: 25423059]
  22. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 Nov-Dec;21 Suppl 6:S80-90 [PMID: 26422498]
  23. J Urban Health. 2010 Dec;87(6):931-41 [PMID: 20967505]
  24. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2000 Sep;6(5):1-18 [PMID: 11067656]
  25. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 Nov-Dec;21 Suppl 6:S91-101 [PMID: 26422500]
  26. Health Serv Res. 2009 Oct;44(5 Pt 2):1842-62 [PMID: 19686252]
  27. Am J Public Health. 2010 Jul;100(7):1290-7 [PMID: 20466950]
  28. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 Jan-Feb;21 Suppl 1:S4-13 [PMID: 25423056]
  29. J Phys Act Health. 2006 Feb;3(s1):S55-S76 [PMID: 28834525]

MeSH Term

Communication
Policy Making
Public Health
Public Health Administration
United States
Urban Health

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0healthpolicyamongdepartmentslocalpublicnetworkstudyurbanchief=networksLHDstiesleadershipacrosswellstaffmembersscience16citiesexponentialrandomgraphmodelsdensitydformationNetworkingBACKGROUND:relationshipdevelopmentgrowingareainterestpractitionersresearchersalikeexamineactivitylargeMETHODS:usesdatanationalprofileresponsessurveysentthreeofficialofficerUnitedStatesNetworkquestionsrelatedfrequencycontactdepartmentpersonnelUsingcentralityexaminedpatternscommunicationworkingseveralareasusingRESULTS:activecommunicatingchronicdiseaseusealcoholtobaccodrugsATODConnectednesshighestofficials55slightlylowerofficers33chiefs29accountingorganizationalcharacteristicshomophilyietwomatchsinglecharacteristictenuresignificantpredictorsCONCLUSION:potentialacceleratingadoptionpoliciessuggestssimilarinterestsconnectionsseniorcanpotentiallydrivegreaterconnectednessRelationshipPolicymakingCharacteristicsLeadersLargeUrbanHealthDepartmentsbigcoalitionresearchsystems

Similar Articles

Cited By