TABLE 1—
Predictors of Importance of Scientific Resources Among LHD Practitioners: United States, October 2012–February 2013
| Importance of Scientific Resourcesa |
||||
| Characteristic | No. Ranked as Importantb | %c | OR (95% CI) | AORd (95% CI) |
| Individual | ||||
| Job position | ||||
| Top executivee (Ref) | 183 | 49.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Manager or other stafff | 118 | 37.0 | 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.2) |
| Administrator, deputy or assistant director | 53 | 33.5 | 0.5 (0.3, 0.7) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.4) |
| Age, y | ||||
| 20–39 (Ref) | 50 | 38.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 40–49 | 68 | 36.4 | 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.6) |
| 50–59 | 153 | 43.8 | 1.2 (0.8, 1.9) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.3) |
| ≥ 60 | 83 | 46.4 | 1.4 (0.9, 2.2) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) |
| Highest degree | ||||
| ≤ bachelor’s (Ref) | 57 | 25.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Nursing | 54 | 32.0 | 1.4 (0.9, 2.2) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.2) |
| Other master’s degree | 101 | 49.3 | 2.9 (1.9, 4.3) | 2.0 (1.3, 3.1) |
| MPH or MSPH | 65 | 47.4 | 2.7 (1.7, 4.2) | 1.7 (1.1, 2.8) |
| Doctoral degree | 76 | 69.7 | 6.9 (4.1, 11.4) | 3.5 (1.9, 6.3) |
| Gender | ||||
| Female (Ref) | 211 | 39.7 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Male | 143 | 45.7 | 1.30 (0.96, 1.70) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) |
| Health department | ||||
| Population of jurisdiction | ||||
| < 25 000 (Ref) | 39 | 21.7 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 25 000–49 999 | 70 | 37.6 | 2.2 (1.4, 3.5) | 2.0 (1.2, 3.4) |
| 50 000–99 999 | 65 | 43.3 | 2.8 (1.7, 4.5) | 2.2 (1.3, 3.7) |
| 100 000–499 999 | 107 | 51.0 | 3.8 (2.4, 5.9) | 3.0 (1.8, 5.0) |
| ≥ 500 000 | 72 | 59.5 | 5.3 (3.2, 8.8) | 3.5 (1.9, 6.4) |
| Governance structure | ||||
| Locally governed (Ref) | 284 | 42.3 | 1.0 | —g |
| State governed | 29 | 39.7 | 0.9 (0.6, 1.5) | —g |
| Shared governance | 40 | 39.6 | 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) | —g |
| Census region | ||||
| Northeast (Ref) | 55 | 44.7 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Midwest | 118 | 37.0 | 0.7 (0.5, 1.1) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.3) |
| South | 107 | 40.5 | 0.8 (0.5. 1.3) | 0.60 (0.40, 1.04) |
| West | 73 | 51.4 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.1) | 1.1 (0.7, 2.0) |
| Leadership structures and practicesh | ||||
| Ability to lead efforts in EBDM | 212 | 46.4 | 1.4 (1.1, 1.8) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.5) |
| Encourages EBDM use | 232 | 49.7 | 1.9 (1.5, 2.6) | 1.6 (1.1, 2.3) |
| Fosters participation of staff in decision-making | 261 | 43.3 | 1.1 (0.8, 1.5) | —g |
| Important to hire people with a public health degree | 145 | 52.2 | 1.8 (1.3, 2.4) | 1.4 (0.9. 2.0) |
| Important to hire people with public health experience | 186 | 46.9 | 1.40 (1.05, 1.80) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.2) |
Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; EBDM = evidence-based decision-making; MPH = Master of Public Health; MSPH = Master of Science in Public Health; OR = odds ratio.
Perceived importance of scientific resources defined as systematic reviews of the body of scientific literature, scientific reports, general literature reviews, or 1 or a few scientific articles.
Perceived importance was dichotomized on the basis of whether a respondent ranked the resource in any of their top 3 (first, second, or third most important).
Row percentages are shown.
Variables that were significant at the P < .2 level in unadjusted analyses were retained in the final model to calculate AORs. The ORs represent the odds of perceiving a resource to be important.
Includes top executives, health directors, health officers, commissioners, or equivalent in office of the director.
Includes managers of a division or program, program coordinators, technical expert positions, or other staff.
Dash indicates that the variable was not included in the final adjusted model since the variable was not significant at the P < .2 level in unadjusted analyses.
7-point Likert-scale response option; frequency shown is those who strongly agree and agree.