TABLE 2.
Factors Associated With Local Health Departments Conducting Obesity Prevention and Diabetes Screening Programs: United States, National Profile of Local Health Departments, 2005
| Obesity Program |
Diabetes Program |
|||
| Variables | Model 1, OR (95% CI) | Model 2, OR (95% CI) | Model 1, OR (95% CI) | Model 2, OR (95% CI) |
| Degree of urbanization in jurisdiction (vs urban) | ||||
| Suburban | 0.98 (0.66, 1.45) | 0.99 (0.66, 1.47) | 0.99 (0.70, 1.41) | 0.89 (0.62, 1.28) |
| Rural | 1.29 (0.87, 1.91) | 1.31 (0.87, 1.95) | 1.31 (0.92, 1.86) | 1.15 (0.80, 1.64) |
| Population size in jurisdiction (vs < 25 000) | ||||
| 25 000–49 999 | 1.19 (0.80, 1.75) | 1.18 (0.80, 1.75) | 0.93 (0.65, 1.31) | 0.95 (0.67, 1.35) |
| 50 000–99 999 | 1.14 (0.72, 1.82) | 1.14 (0.72, 1.81) | 0.73 (0.48, 1.10) | 0.75 (0.49, 1.14) |
| 100 000–499 999 | 1.13 (0.67, 1.89) | 1.12 (0.67, 1.88) | 0.52** (0.33, 0.83) | 0.55* (0.34, 0.87) |
| ≥ 500 000 | 1.87 (0.83, 4.20) | 1.85 (0.82, 4.16) | 0.91 (0.47, 1.77) | 1.02 (0.53, 1.99) |
| Race/ethnicity in jurisdiction | ||||
| African American | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) | 1.01** (1.00, 1.02) | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) |
| Hispanic or Latino | 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) | 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) | 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) | 1.01* (1.00, 1.02) |
| Having a local board of health (yes vs no) | 1.05 (0.76, 1.47) | 1.06 (0.76, 1.48) | 1.54** (1.15, 2.06) | 1.49** (1.11, 2.00) |
| Financing | ||||
| Expenditure per capita | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) |
| Proportion of federal funding | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) | 0.99** (0.98, 1.00) | 0.99** (0.98, 1.00) |
| Proportion of state funding | 1.01** (1.00, 1.02) | 1.01** (1.00, 1.02) | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) | 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) |
| Workforce | ||||
| Full-time top agency executive (yes vs no) | 2.76*** (1.71, 4.46) | 2.74*** (1.69, 4.43) | 1.07 (0.71, 1.62) | 1.17 (0.77, 1.77) |
| Tenure of top agency executive | 1.00 (0.98, 1.01) | 1.00 (0.98, 1.01) | 1.01 (0.99, 1.02) | 1.01 (0.99, 1.02) |
| Top agency executive with a medical or public health degree (yes vs no) | 1.44* (1.06, 1.96) | 1.45* (1.07, 1.96) | 1.20 (0.92, 1.56) | 1.17 (0.90, 1.53) |
| Staff FTEs per 1000 population | 1.50** (1.14, 1.96) | 1.50** (1.14, 1.97) | 1.28* (1.01, 1.61) | 1.25 (0.99, 1.57) |
| Employing physicians or nurses (yes vs no) | 1.42 (0.72, 2.81) | 1.44 (0.72, 2.85) | 1.77 (0.97, 3.25) | 1.58 (0.86, 2.91) |
| Employing health educators (yes vs no) | 2.08*** (1.54, 2.81) | 2.08*** (1.54, 2.81) | 1.59** (1.20, 2.11) | 1.63** (1.23, 2.17) |
| Employing nutritionists (yes vs no) | 1.13 (0.84, 1.52) | 1.14 (0.84, 1.53) | 1.28 (0.98, 1.68) | 1.20 (0.91, 1.58) |
| Surveillance activities | ||||
| Conducting chronic disease surveillance (yes vs no) | 1.66*** (1.26, 2.19) | 1.66*** (1.26, 2.20) | 2.45*** (1.91, 3.15) | 2.44*** (1.90, 3.15) |
| Conducting behavior risk surveillance (yes vs no) | 2.91*** (2.18, 3.87) | 2.92*** (2.19, 3.89) | 0.99 (0.76, 1.27) | 0.96 (0.74, 1.24) |
| Community health assessment and planning | ||||
| Health assessment (yes vs no) | 1.43* (1.07, 1.90) | 1.42* (1.07, 1.90) | 1.05 (0.80, 1.37) | 1.07 (0.82, 1.41) |
| Health improvement plan (yes vs no) | 1.70*** (1.28, 2.26) | 1.70*** (1.28, 2.26) | 0.96 (0.74, 1.25) | 0.97 (0.74, 1.27) |
| Collaboration increased (yes vs no) | 1.78** (1.18, 2.67) | 1.78** (1.18, 2.67) | 1.33 (0.92, 1.91) | 1.34 (0.93, 1.94) |
| Estimated prevalence of diabetes | 0.98 (0.90, 1.08) | 1.20*** (1.11, 1.31) | ||
Note. CI = confidence interval; FTEs = full-time equivalents; OR = odds ratio. Associations established by logistic regression.
*P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.