Table 2.
LHD and respondent characteristics of LHDs in the sample reporting on diabetes-related EBIs (n=240)
| LHDs offering* diabetes-related EBIs, n (%†) or mean (SE) | ||||||
| Total | DPP‡ | CHWs§ | DSME¶ | Identify** | All four | |
| Respondent characteristics | ||||||
| Age group (years), n (%) | ||||||
| 20–29 | 9 | 7 (78) | 7 (78) | 8 (89) | 7 (78) | 6 (67) |
| 30–39 | 57 | 47 (82) | 35 (61) | 42 (78) | 37 (69) | 22 (39) |
| 40–49 | 73 | 62 (85) | 52 (71) | 64 (89) | 51 (72) | 38 (52) |
| 50–59 | 67 | 54 (81) | 37 (55) | 51 (80) | 39 (63) | 22 (33) |
| 60+ | 33 | 26 (79) | 12 (36) | 25 (76) | 17 (52) | 7 (21) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.93 | 0.01 | 0.36 | 0.27 | 0.01 | |
| Race/Ethnicity, n (%) | ||||||
| White | 203 | 167 (82) | 118 (58) | 162 (83) | 125 (64) | 76 (37) |
| Black/African–American | 17 | 14 (82) | 11 (65) | 14 (82) | 13 (76) | 9 (53) |
| Other race | 14 | 10 (71) | 9 (64) | 9 (64) | 9 (69) | 6 (43) |
| Hispanic or Latino | 5 | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 4 (80) | 4 (80) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.54 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.67 | 0.16 | |
| Sex, n (%) | ||||||
| Male | 36 | 31 (86) | 22 (61) | 31 (91) | 25 (78) | 16 (44) |
| Female | 202 | 165 (82) | 120 (59) | 158 (80) | 126 (64) | 79 (39) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.52 | 0.85 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.55 | |
| Master’s degree or higher in any field (n%) | ||||||
| No | 110 | 85 (77) | 70 (64) | 87 (83) | 68 (66) | 46 (42) |
| Yes | 126 | 108 (86) | 71 (56) | 100 (81) | 80 (65) | 47 (37) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.09 | 0.25 | 0.67 | 0.88 | 0.48 | |
| Public health master’s or doctorate, n (%) | ||||||
| No | 170 | 139 (82) | 105 (62) | 138 (84) | 109 (67) | 70 (41) |
| Yes | 66 | 54 (82) | 36 (55) | 49 (77) | 39 (61) | 23 (35) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.99 | 0.31 | 0.21 | 0.37 | 0.37 | |
| Position, n (%) | ||||||
| Top executive, health director/officer/commissioner | 60 | 53 (88) | 30 (50) | 50 (83) | 44 (73) | 25 (42) |
| Administrator, deputy or assistant director | 53 | 41 (77) | 37 (70) | 44 (83) | 37 (70) | 25 (47) |
| Manager of a division or program | 83 | 72 (87) | 51 (61) | 67 (84) | 46 (58) | 30 (36) |
| Program coordinator | 27 | 21 (78) | 16 (59) | 19 (76) | 18 (75) | 12 (44) |
| Technical expert position (evaluator, epidemiologist, health educator)/other | 16 | 9 (56) | 9 (56) | 10 (71) | 6 (46) | 3 (19) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.02 | 0.31 | 0.75 | 0.13 | 0.29 | |
| Years in current position, n (%) | ||||||
| <5 | 135 | 112 (83) | 90 (67) | 108 (82) | 90 (70) | 63 (47) |
| 5–9 | 57 | 48 (84) | 34 (60) | 47 (84) | 34 (61) | 21 (37) |
| 10–19 | 31 | 23 (74) | 16 (52) | 22 (73) | 16 (55) | 8 (26) |
| 20+ | 15 | 13 (87) | 3 (20) | 13 (87) | 11 (73) | 3 (20) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.62 | 0.00 | 0.59 | 0.34 | 0.05 | |
| Years in public health, n (%) | ||||||
| <5 | 28 | 22 (79) | 23 (82) | 23 (85) | 21 (78) | 17 (61) |
| 5–9 | 38 | 33 (87) | 23 (61) | 30 (81) | 25 (68) | 15 (39) |
| 10–19 | 81 | 65 (80) | 44 (54) | 67 (85) | 53 (68) | 32 (40) |
| 20+ | 91 | 76 (84) | 53 (58) | 70 (79) | 52 (60) | 31 (34) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.77 | 0.07 | 0.73 | 0.34 | 0.10 | |
| Short Grit Scale, mean (SE) | ||||||
| Not offered | 3.96 (0.48) | 4.03 (0.49) | 4.01 (0.52) | 3.95 (0.50) | 4.00 (0.48) | |
| Offered | 4.00 (0.48) | 3.97 (0.46) | 3.99 (0.47) | 4.01 (0.47) | 3.98 (0.48) | |
| Mean difference | −0.04 (0.08) | 0.06 (0.06) | 0.02 (0.08) | −0.06 (0.07) | 0.03 (0.06) | |
| t (p) | −0.48 (0.63) | 0.99 (0.32) | 0.29 (0.77) | −0.95 (0.34) | 0.41 (0.68) | |
| LHD characteristics | ||||||
| LHD jurisdiction population category, n (%) | ||||||
| Small (<50 000) | 79 | 58 (73) | 45 (57) | 62 (81) | 48 (63) | 30 (38) |
| Medium (50 000–199 999) | 75 | 64 (85) | 42 (56) | 60 (82) | 51 (71) | 32 (43) |
| Large (200 000+) | 84 | 73 (87) | 56 (67) | 67 (83) | 51 (64) | 33 (39) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.05 | 0.31 | 0.93 | 0.55 | 0.83 | |
| PHAB-accredited or preparing to apply, n (%) | ||||||
| Currently accredited | 69 | 59 (86) | 46 (67) | 55 (81) | 45 (67) | 26 (38) |
| Recently applied but not yet accredited | 28 | 24 (86) | 18 (64) | 23 (85) | 18 (67) | 13 (46) |
| Yes, but have not yet applied | 43 | 36 (84) | 26 (60) | 34 (85) | 21 (55) | 16 (37) |
| No | 78 | 61 (78) | 39 (50) | 62 (79) | 52 (67) | 29 (37) |
| Unsure | 21 | 16 (76) | 14 (67) | 16 (84) | 15 (79) | 11 (52) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.71 | 0.27 | 0.93 | 0.49 | 0.67 | |
| Currently participate in academic partnerships, n (%) | ||||||
| Yes | 173 | 146 (84) | 108 (62) | 143 (85) | 115 (69) | 75 (43) |
| No/Unsure | 65 | 50 (77) | 35 (54) | 47 (76) | 36 (59) | 20 (31) |
| Pearson’s χ2 p | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.08 | |
| Diabetes prevalence in the state, mean (SE) | ||||||
| Not offered | 8.91 (1.47) | 9.27 (1.52) | 8.85 (1.43) | 8.98 (1.47) | 9.22 (1.43) | |
| Offered* | 9.45 (1.51) | 9.40 (1.51) | 9.45 (1.53) | 9.51 (1.51) | 9.54 (1.62) | |
| Mean difference | −0.54 (0.25) | −0.13 (0.20) | −0.60 (0.26) | −0.53 (0.21) | −0.31 (0.20) | |
| t (p) | −2.13 (0.03) | −0.65 (0.52) | −2.33 (0.02) | −2.55 (0.01) | −1.58 (0.12) | |
| Organizational support for EBDM (standardized) | ||||||
| Factor 1: awareness of EBDM, mean (SE) | ||||||
| Not offered | 0.01 (0.13) | 0.05 (0.08) | −0.04 (0.12) | −0.06 (0.08) | −0.16 (0.28) | |
| Offered* | 0.05 (0.05) | 0.05 (0.05) | 0.08 (0.05) | 0.11 (0.05) | 0.06 (0.04) | |
| Mean difference | −0.04 (0.12) | 0.00 (0.09) | −0.12 (0.11) | −0.16 (0.09) | −0.22 (0.18) | |
| t (p) | −0.34 (0.73) | 0.00 (1.00) | −1.08 (0.28) | −1.77 (0.08) | −1.21 (0.23) | |
| Factor 2: capacity for EBDM, mean (SE) | ||||||
| Not offered | −0.01 (0.14) | 0.03 (0.08) | −0.03 (0.13) | −0.07 (0.09) | −0.21 (0.31) | |
| Offered* | 0.06 (0.05) | 0.05 (0.06) | 0.08 (0.05) | 0.11 (0.06) | 0.06 (0.05) | |
| Mean difference | −0.06 (0.13) | −0.02 (0.10) | −0.11 (0.12) | −0.18 (0.10) | −0.28 (0.20) | |
| t (p) | −0.51 (0.61) | −0.21 (0.83) | −0.88 (0.38) | −1.80 (0.07) | −1.38 (0.17) | |
| Factor 3: resource availability, mean (SE) | ||||||
| Not offered | −0.07 (0.11) | 0.04 (0.07) | 0.00 (0.10) | −0.04 (0.08) | −0.19 (0.24) | |
| Offered* | 0.06 (0.05) | 0.03 (0.05) | 0.06 (0.05) | 0.09 (0.05) | 0.05 (0.04) | |
| Mean difference | −0.13 (0.11) | 0.00 (0.09) | −0.07 (0.11) | −0.14 (0.09) | −0.24 (0.18) | |
| t (p) | −1.13 (0.26) | 0.03 (0.98) | −0.59 (0.56) | −1.55 (0.12) | −1.37 (0.17) | |
| Factor 4: evaluation capacity, mean (SE) | ||||||
| Not offered | −0.08 (0.15) | 0.09 (0.09) | −0.12 (0.13) | −0.14 (0.09) | −0.27 (0.33) | |
| Offered* | 0.06 (0.06) | 0.00 (0.06) | 0.08 (0.06) | 0.13 (0.06) | 0.06 (0.05) | |
| Mean difference | −0.14 (0.14) | 0.09 (0.11) | −0.20 (0.14) | −0.27 (0.11) | −0.33 (0.22) | |
| t (p) | −1.02 (0.31) | 0.82 (0.42) | −1.47 (0.14) | −2.47 (0.01) | −1.51 (0.13) | |
| Factor 5: EBDM climate cultivation, mean (SE) | ||||||
| Not offered | 0.08 (0.10) | 0.08 (0.06) | 0.02 (0.09) | −0.04 (0.07) | −0.06 (0.22) | |
| Offered* | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.04) | 0.05 (0.04) | 0.08 (0.04) | 0.04 (0.04) | |
| Mean difference | 0.05 (0.09) | 0.07 (0.07) | −0.03 (0.09) | −0.13 (0.08) | −0.10 (0.15) | |
| t (p) | 0.57 (0.57) | 1.01 (0.31) | −0.32 (0.75) | −1.64 (0.10) | −0.69 (0.49) | |
| Factor 6: partnerships to support EBDM, mean (SE) | ||||||
| Not offered | −0.03 (0.11) | −0.01 (0.07) | −0.01 (0.11) | −0.10 (0.08) | −0.23 (0.25) | |
| Offered* | −0.02 (0.04) | −0.03 (0.05) | −0.01 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.05) | −0.01 (0.04) | |
| Mean difference | −0.01 (0.11) | 0.01 (0.08) | 0.00 (0.11) | −0.12 (0.09) | −0.22 (0.17) | |
| t (p) | −0.13 (0.90) | 0.15 (0.88) | 0.03 (0.98) | −1.36 (0.17) | −1.31 (0.19) | |
Bold values indicate statistically significant relationships according to a n alpha=0.05 threshold.
*Each category included four EBIs and asked participants to report whether their LHD offered the EBI directly, in collaboration with a partner, both (directly/in collaboration), or neither.
†% within respondent and LHD characteristic categories.
‡Diet and physical activity promotion programs with people at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, such as the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP).
§Community health workers (CHWs) to deliver diet and physical activity promotion and weight management to groups or individuals with increased risk for type 2 diabetes.
¶Diabetes self-management education (DSME) with persons with diabetes delivered in community gathering places.
**Diabetes management interventions identifying patients with diabetes and determining effective treatment (identify).
EBDM, evidence-based decision making; EBIs, evidence-based interventions; LHDs, local health departments; PHAB, Public Health Accreditation Board.