Table 3.
Predictors of importance of scientific resources among LHD practitioners in U.S.
| Importance of scientific resources1 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | No. ranked as important2 | %3 | OR (95% CI) | aOR4 (95% CI) |
| Individual | ||||
| Job position | ||||
| Top executive* | 183 | 49.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Manager or other staff** | 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 | ||||
| 20-39 | 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 or older | 83 | 46.4 | 1.4 (0.9, 2.2) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) |
| Highest degree | ||||
| Bachelors or less | 57 | 25.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Nursing | 54 | 32.0 | 1.4 (0.9, 2.2) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.2) |
| Other masters degree | 101 | 49.3 | 2.9 (1.9, 4.3) | 2.0 (1.3, 3.1) |
| MPH/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 | 211 | 39.7 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Male | 143 | 45.7 | 1.3 (0.96, 1.7) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) |
| Health Department | ||||
| Population of jurisdiction | ||||
| <25,000 | 39 | 21.7 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 25,000 to 49,999 | 70 | 37.6 | 2.2 (1.4, 3.5) | 2.0 (1.2, 3.4) |
| 50,000 to 99,999 | 65 | 43.3 | 2.8 (1.7, 4.5) | 2.2 (1.3, 3.7) |
| 100,000 to 499,999 | 107 | 51.0 | 3.8 (2.4, 5.9) | 3.0 (1.8, 5.0) |
| 500,000 or larger | 72 | 59.5 | 5.3 (3.2, 8.8) | 3.5 (1.9, 6.4) |
| Governance structure | ||||
| Locally governed | 284 | 42.3 | 1.0 | -- |
| State governed | 29 | 39.7 | 0.9 (0.6, 1.5) | -- |
| Shared governance | 40 | 39.6 | 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) | -- |
| Census region | ||||
| Northeast | 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) | 0.6 (0.4, 1.04) |
| West | 73 | 51.4 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.1) | 1.1 (0.7, 2.0) |
| Leadership structures/practices5 | ||||
| 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) | -- |
| 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 | 1.4 (1.05, 1.8) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.2) |
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
MPH (Master of Public Health); MSPH (Master of Science in Public Health)
Notes:
Perceived importance of scientific resources defined as: Systematic reviews of the body of scientific literature, scientific reports, general literature reviews, or one or a few scientific articles
Perceived importance was dichotomized based on whether or not a respondent ranked the resource in any of their top 3 (first, second, or third most important)
Row percentages are shown
Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval): Variables that were significant at the p<0.2 level in unadjusted analyses were retained in the final model to calculate adjusted odds ratios. The odds ratios represent the odds of perceiving a resource to be important
7-point Likert-scale response option; frequency shown is those who “strongly agree” and “agree.”