TABLE 3—
Perceived Importance and Reported Use of Resources Among LHD Practitioners (n = 849): United States, October 2012–February 2013
| Variable | No. (%)a |
| Perceived importance of resources when making decisions about programs, policy, or funding | |
| Funding guidance (legislative authority or federal funding source) | 463 (54.5) |
| Guidance from the state health agency | 423 (49.8) |
| Perspectives or priorities of agency leadershipb | 330 (38.9) |
| Success stories and lessons learned from peers | 326 (38.4) |
| Health planning tools (e.g., MAPP or Healthy People 2020) | 316 (37.2) |
| Systematic reviews of the body of scientific literature (Community Guide) | 210 (24.7) |
| Scientific reports (e.g., IOM reports, surgeon general reports) | 135 (15.9) |
| General literature review articles | 55 (6.5) |
| 1 or a few scientific studies | 41 (4.8) |
| Other | 37 (4.4) |
| Reports to funders | 21 (2.5) |
| Perceived importance of resources when seeking to learn about current findings in public health research | |
| Seminars or workshops (phone, webinars, or in-person) | 447 (52.7) |
| Professional associations | 410 (48.3) |
| E-mail alerts | 288 (33.9) |
| Academic journals | 279 (32.9) |
| Academic conferences | 187 (22.0) |
| Newsletters | 178 (21.0) |
| Policy briefs | 143 (16.8) |
| Other conferences | 138 (16.3) |
| Press releases | 106 (12.5) |
| Face-to-face meetings with stakeholders | 91 (10.7) |
| Targeted mailings | 45 (5.3) |
| Other | 34 (4.0) |
| Social media (Facebook, Twitter) | 20 (2.4) |
| Media interviews | 6 (0.7) |
| CD-ROMs | 5 (0.6) |
| Journals most often read to stay up to date on current public health findings | |
| Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report | 194 (22.9) |
| American Journal of Public Health | 179 (21.1) |
| Public Health Reports | 87 (10.2) |
| Journal of Public Health Management and Practice | 82 (9.7) |
| Emerging Infectious Diseases | 57 (6.7) |
| New England Journal of Medicine | 44 (5.2) |
| Other | 43 (5.1) |
| Journal of the American Medical Association | 39 (4.6) |
| American Journal of Preventive Medicine | 26 (3.1) |
| Health Affairs | 13 (1.5) |
| Preventing Chronic Disease | 13 (1.5) |
| Annual Review of Public Health | 5 (0.6) |
| Preventive Medicine | 5 (0.6) |
| BMC Public Health | 2 (0.2) |
| Frontiers in Public Health Services and Systems Research | 1 (0.1) |
| Implementation Science | 0 (0.0) |
Note. IOM = institute of medicine; LHD = local health department; MAPP = mobilizing for action through planning and partnerships.
As a result of equal weighting, it is possible that the percentages within each of the 3 domains can total up to 300%, since each respondent was able to rank a maximum of 3 items for each of the 3 domains. For example, if every single respondent ranked the same 3 items within 1 of the 3 domains (i.e., complete agreement among respondents), then these 3 items would be 100% each; thus, totaling 300%.
The percentage of managers and other staff who ranked “perspectives or priorities of agency leadership” in their top 3 (44%) was slightly higher than top executives (37%) and administrators, deputy or assistant directors (35%). This does not affect the relative ranking for managers and other staff, the group for which this variable is likely to be the most meaningful.