RESUMEN

Background: Employee engagement, exemplified by positive perceptions of supervisors, workplace, and job, improves productivity and employee retention. We identified the extent of and barriers to employee engagement at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP). Methods: In 2015, NCHHSTP's leadership collected baseline data through a centerwide Employee Engagement Pulse Survey (EEPS) from NCHHSTP's full-time Civil Service employees, U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps officers, and Title 42 service fellows. EEPS included six demographic questions; nine Likert-type scale questions measuring 26 perceptions related to immediate supervisors, the work environment, and job satisfaction; and four open-ended questions soliciting recommendations for improvement. Findings: Among 727 of 1,171 staff (response rate = 62%), positive perceptions of supervisors ranged from a high of 94% (supervisor conducts performance reviews) to a low of 63% (supervisor assists employees with career development). Perceptions of work experience ranged from 98% (respondents were willing to put in extra effort to get a job done) to 68% (respondents' talents were used well in the workplace). Perceptions of job satisfaction ranged from 87% (support from their coworkers) to 69% (satisfaction with opportunities to learn or grow professionally). Conclusion/Application to Practice: Overall, NCHHSTP staff have positive perceptions of their work, their leaders, and the agency. Other public- and private-sector employers might be able to improve their employees' engagement and retention by listening to their opinions and needs and frequently recognizing their individual achievements. NCHHSTP's workforce development initiatives can be used as a model for assessing a baseline of their employees' engagement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In 2015, more than 27 million people in the United States reported that they currently used illicit drugs or misused prescription drugs, and more than 66 million reported binge drinking during the previous month. Data from public health surveillance systems on drug and alcohol abuse are crucial for developing and evaluating interventions to prevent and control such behavior. However, public health surveillance for behavioral health in the United States has been hindered by organizational issues and other factors. For example, existing guidelines for surveillance evaluation do not distinguish between data systems that characterize behavioral health problems and those that assess other public health problems (eg, infectious diseases). To address this gap in behavioral health surveillance, we present a revised framework for evaluating behavioral health surveillance systems. This system framework builds on published frameworks and incorporates additional attributes (informatics capabilities and population coverage) that we deemed necessary for evaluating behavioral health-related surveillance. This revised surveillance evaluation framework can support ongoing improvements to behavioral health surveillance systems and ensure their continued usefulness for detecting, preventing, and managing behavioral health problems.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The methods section of a scientific article often receives the most scrutiny from journal editors, peer reviewers, and skeptical readers because it allows them to judge the validity of the results. The methods section also facilitates critical interpretation of study activities, explains how the study avoided or corrected for bias, details how the data support the answer to the study question, justifies generalizing the findings to other populations, and facilitates comparison with past or future studies. In 2006, the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Programme began collecting and disseminating guidelines for reporting health research studies. In addition, guidelines for reporting public health investigations not classified as research have also been developed. However, regardless of the type of study or scientific report, the methods section should describe certain core elements: the study design; how participants were selected; the study setting; the period of interest; the variables and their definitions used for analysis; the procedures or instruments used to measure exposures, outcomes, and their association; and the analyses. Specific requirements for each study type should be consulted during the project planning phase and again when writing begins. We present requirements for reporting methods for public health activities, including outbreak investigations, public health surveillance programs, prevention and intervention program evaluations, research, surveys, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: A highly skilled public health workforce is needed for responding to health threats, and that workforce must be able to communicate its scientific findings effectively. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the scientific communication effectiveness of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) field-based Epidemic Intelligence Service officers (EISOs). DESIGN: A descriptive analysis of all scientific information products produced and submitted for institutional clearance by CDC's field-based EISOs during 2009-2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The number of abstracts, journal manuscripts, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWRs), and other information products approved by CDC during 2009-2014; the number of those products published; and of those published, the number cited in the scientific literature. RESULTS: During 2009-2014, a total of 152 field-based EISOs produced 835 scientific information products, including 437 abstracts, 261 manuscripts, and 103 MMWRs. The majority of scientific information products submitted for clearance were abstracts (52.3%), and infectious diseases (75.3%) constituted the majority of topics. Among the 103 MMWRs and 261 manuscripts cleared, 88 (85%) and 199 (76%) were published, respectively, with the majority also infectious disease-related. The 199 published manuscripts were cited in the scientific literature 2415 times, and the 88 published MMWRs were cited 1249 times. Field-based EISOs published their work in 74 different peer-reviewed medical and public health journals, with 54% published in journals with impact factors of 1 to 5. CONCLUSIONS: Field-based EISOs' publications are a measurable marker that reflects proficiency in epidemiology, written communication, and professionalism, and those publications are a direct reflection of EISOs' contribution to local and state health departments. Our study establishes a baseline for future evaluations of publication outcome of scientific information products by EISOs. Information released by EISOs provides health professionals with the scientific knowledge necessary for improving their practice and helps CDC achieve a broader societal, environmental, cultural, and economic impact.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)