A review of instruments assessing public health preparedness

Steven M. Asch, Michael Stoto, Marc Mendes, R. Burciaga Valdez, Meghan E. Gallagher, Paul Halverson, Nicole Lurie

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to review instruments that assess the level of preparedness of state and local public health departments to respond to health threats such as bioterrorism. Methods. The authors examined 27 published population-based instruments for planning or evaluating preparedness that were mostly unavailable in the peer-reviewed literature. Using the Essential Public Health Services framework, the instruments were evaluated for (1) clarity of measurement parameters, (2) balance between structural and process measures, (3) evidence of effectiveness, and (4) specification of an accountable entity. Results. There was a great deal of overlap but little consistency in what constitutes "preparedness" or how it should be measured. Most instruments relied excessively on subjective or structural measures, lacked scientific evidence for measures assessed, and failed to clearly define what entity was accountable for accomplishing the task or function. Conclusion. Strategies for improvement include measure standardization, better interagency communication, and investment in public health practice research to develop the underlying evidence base required for developing quality measures and assessments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)532-542
Number of pages11
JournalPublic Health Reports
Volume120
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Community Health Planning
Public Health Practice
Bioterrorism
Process Assessment (Health Care)
United States Public Health Service
Public Health
Health
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Asch, S. M., Stoto, M., Mendes, M., Valdez, R. B., Gallagher, M. E., Halverson, P., & Lurie, N. (2005). A review of instruments assessing public health preparedness. Public Health Reports, 120(5), 532-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490512000508

A review of instruments assessing public health preparedness. / Asch, Steven M.; Stoto, Michael; Mendes, Marc; Valdez, R. Burciaga; Gallagher, Meghan E.; Halverson, Paul; Lurie, Nicole.

In: Public Health Reports, Vol. 120, No. 5, 01.01.2005, p. 532-542.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Asch, SM, Stoto, M, Mendes, M, Valdez, RB, Gallagher, ME, Halverson, P & Lurie, N 2005, 'A review of instruments assessing public health preparedness', Public Health Reports, vol. 120, no. 5, pp. 532-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490512000508
Asch, Steven M. ; Stoto, Michael ; Mendes, Marc ; Valdez, R. Burciaga ; Gallagher, Meghan E. ; Halverson, Paul ; Lurie, Nicole. / A review of instruments assessing public health preparedness. In: Public Health Reports. 2005 ; Vol. 120, No. 5. pp. 532-542.
@article{4c03e4ce27f24e68b8c1568b6bf8ba1e,
title = "A review of instruments assessing public health preparedness",
abstract = "Objectives. The purpose of this study was to review instruments that assess the level of preparedness of state and local public health departments to respond to health threats such as bioterrorism. Methods. The authors examined 27 published population-based instruments for planning or evaluating preparedness that were mostly unavailable in the peer-reviewed literature. Using the Essential Public Health Services framework, the instruments were evaluated for (1) clarity of measurement parameters, (2) balance between structural and process measures, (3) evidence of effectiveness, and (4) specification of an accountable entity. Results. There was a great deal of overlap but little consistency in what constitutes {"}preparedness{"} or how it should be measured. Most instruments relied excessively on subjective or structural measures, lacked scientific evidence for measures assessed, and failed to clearly define what entity was accountable for accomplishing the task or function. Conclusion. Strategies for improvement include measure standardization, better interagency communication, and investment in public health practice research to develop the underlying evidence base required for developing quality measures and assessments.",
author = "Asch, {Steven M.} and Michael Stoto and Marc Mendes and Valdez, {R. Burciaga} and Gallagher, {Meghan E.} and Paul Halverson and Nicole Lurie",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/003335490512000508",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "120",
pages = "532--542",
journal = "Public Health Reports",
issn = "0033-3549",
publisher = "Association of Schools of Public Health",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A review of instruments assessing public health preparedness

AU - Asch, Steven M.

AU - Stoto, Michael

AU - Mendes, Marc

AU - Valdez, R. Burciaga

AU - Gallagher, Meghan E.

AU - Halverson, Paul

AU - Lurie, Nicole

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - Objectives. The purpose of this study was to review instruments that assess the level of preparedness of state and local public health departments to respond to health threats such as bioterrorism. Methods. The authors examined 27 published population-based instruments for planning or evaluating preparedness that were mostly unavailable in the peer-reviewed literature. Using the Essential Public Health Services framework, the instruments were evaluated for (1) clarity of measurement parameters, (2) balance between structural and process measures, (3) evidence of effectiveness, and (4) specification of an accountable entity. Results. There was a great deal of overlap but little consistency in what constitutes "preparedness" or how it should be measured. Most instruments relied excessively on subjective or structural measures, lacked scientific evidence for measures assessed, and failed to clearly define what entity was accountable for accomplishing the task or function. Conclusion. Strategies for improvement include measure standardization, better interagency communication, and investment in public health practice research to develop the underlying evidence base required for developing quality measures and assessments.

AB - Objectives. The purpose of this study was to review instruments that assess the level of preparedness of state and local public health departments to respond to health threats such as bioterrorism. Methods. The authors examined 27 published population-based instruments for planning or evaluating preparedness that were mostly unavailable in the peer-reviewed literature. Using the Essential Public Health Services framework, the instruments were evaluated for (1) clarity of measurement parameters, (2) balance between structural and process measures, (3) evidence of effectiveness, and (4) specification of an accountable entity. Results. There was a great deal of overlap but little consistency in what constitutes "preparedness" or how it should be measured. Most instruments relied excessively on subjective or structural measures, lacked scientific evidence for measures assessed, and failed to clearly define what entity was accountable for accomplishing the task or function. Conclusion. Strategies for improvement include measure standardization, better interagency communication, and investment in public health practice research to develop the underlying evidence base required for developing quality measures and assessments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=25144483318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=25144483318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/003335490512000508

DO - 10.1177/003335490512000508

M3 - Review article

VL - 120

SP - 532

EP - 542

JO - Public Health Reports

JF - Public Health Reports

SN - 0033-3549

IS - 5

ER -