Assessment of epidemiology capacity in State Health Departments - United States, 2009.
(4/233)
Since 2001, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) periodically has conducted a standardized national assessment of state health departments' core epidemiology capacity. During April-June 2009, CSTE sent a web-based questionnaire to the state epidemiologist in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The assessment inquired into workforce capacity and technological advancements to support surveillance. Measures of capacity included total number of epidemiologists and self-assessment of the state's ability to carry out four essential services of public health (ESPH). This report summarizes the results of the assessment, which determined that in 2009, 10% fewer epidemiologists were working in state health departments than in 2006. Compared with 2006, the percentage of state health departments with substantial-to-full (>50%) epidemiology capacity decreased in three ESPH, including 1) capacities to monitor and detect health problems, 2) investigate them, and 3) evaluate the effectiveness of population-based services. The percentage of departments with substantial-to-full epidemiology capacity for bioterrorism/emergency response decreased slightly, from 76% in 2006 to 73% in 2009. More than 30% of states reported minimal-to-no (<25%) capacity to evaluate and conduct research and for five of nine epidemiology program areas, including environmental health, injury, occupational health, oral health, and substance abuse. Working together, federal, state, and local agencies should develop a strategy to address downward trends and major gaps in epidemiology capacity. (+info)
Basic occupational health services in Baoan, China.
(5/233)
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to develop a model of basic occupational health services (BOHS) in Baoan, which could provide occupational health services (OHS) universally for workers and control occupational hazards. METHODS: Steps involved in the BOHS strategy included construction of the BOHS system, capacity building, health training and education, surveillance of workplaces and the health of workers, risk assessment, control and evaluation processes. RESULTS: This model provided BOHS to employees universally, especially migrant workers in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who had been underserved. It expanded the coverage of OHS and improved their content. The knowledge and recognition rate of occupational diseases, the coverage rates of working places and workers rose significantly after three years development. Furthermore, BOHS were cost-effective and accepted by both employers and employees. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that a BOHS strategy might be a feasible and effective way of protecting the health of workers confronted with occupational hazards. (+info)
Strengthening prevention performance using technology: a formative evaluation of interactive Getting To Outcomes.
(6/233)