Table 3

Associations between respondent and LHD characteristics and delivering diabetes-related EBIs directly or in collaboration

DPP*CHWs†DSME‡Identify§Offering all 4 diabetes EBIs
OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)
Respondent characteristics
 Master’s degree or higher in any field1.76 (0.90 to 3.45)0.74 (0.44 to 1.25)0.86 (0.44 to 1.69)0.96 (0.55 to 1.66)0.83 (0.49 to 1.40)
 Public health master’s or doctorate1.00 (0.48 to 2.10)0.74 (0.42 to 1.32)0.64 (0.31 to 1.30)0.76 (0.42 to 1.38)0.76 (0.42 to 1.38)
 Position (top executive, health director, health officer, commissioner=referent) 0.74 (0.56 to 0.99) 1.07 (0.86 to 1.33)0.87 (0.65 to 1.15)0.82 (0.64 to 1.04)0.86 (0.69 to 1.08)
 Years in current position0.93 (0.66 to 1.33) 0.62 (0.46 to 0.82) 0.94 (0.66 to 1.34)0.88 (0.66 to 1.17) 0.65 (0.47 to 0.88)
 Years in public health1.04 (0.75 to 1.45)0.78 (0.59 to 1.01)0.88 (0.62 to 1.24)0.78 (0.59 to 1.04) 0.75 (0.58 to 0.97)
 Age0.94 (0.69 to 1.28) 0.71 (0.55 to 0.91) 0.89 (0.66 to 1.22)0.78 (0.60 to 1.01) 0.72 (0.56 to 0.93)
 Race/Ethnicity0.99 (0.60 to 1.63)1.44 (0.92 to 2.24)0.88 (0.55 to 1.40)1.26 (0.80 to 1.98)1.44 (0.97 to 2.13)
 Sex0.72 (0.26 to 1.97)0.93 (0.45 to 1.93)0.39 (0.11 to 1.35)0.50 (0.20 to 1.21)0.80 (0.39 to 1.64)
 Short Grit Scale1.19 (0.59 to 2.38)0.76 (0.44 to 1.31)0.90 (0.44 to 1.83)1.32 (0.75 to 2.33)0.89 (0.52 to 1.54)
LHD characteristics
 Jurisdiction population categories (<50 000=referent) 1.59 (1.05 to 2.40) 1.23 (0.90 to 1.68)1.08 (0.72 to 1.61)1.01 (0.73 to 1.41)1.03 (0.75 to 1.40)
 PHAB accreditation status0.84 (0.66 to 1.08)0.87 (0.72 to 1.05)0.99 (0.78 to 1.26)1.04 (0.85 to 1.26)1.04 (0.86 to 1.25)
 Academic partnership0.62 (0.30 to 1.25)0.70 (0.39 to 1.25)0.57 (0.28 to 1.17)0.65 (0.36 to 1.19)0.58 (0.32 to 1.07)
 Diabetes prevalence in the state 1.28 (1.02 to 1.62) 1.06 (0.89 to 1.26) 1.32 (1.04 to 1.67) 1.27 (1.05 to 1.54) 1.15 (0.97 to 1.36)
Organizational support for EBDM
 Factor 1: awareness of EBDM1.09 (0.67 to 1.75)1.00 (0.69 to 1.45)1.31 (0.80 to 2.16)1.45 (0.96 to 2.20)1.59 (0.75 to 3.37)
 Factor 2: capacity for EBDM1.12 (0.72 to 1.74)1.04 (0.74 to 1.46)1.23 (0.78 to 1.95)1.42 (0.97 to 2.09)1.62 (0.81 to 3.22)
 Factor 3: resource availability1.33 (0.81 to 2.19)0.99 (0.67 to 1.47)1.17 (0.70 to 1.96)1.40 (0.91 to 2.15)1.72 (0.79 to 3.76)
 Factor 4: evaluation capacity1.23 (0.83 to 1.83)0.88 (0.64 to 1.20)1.36 (0.90 to 2.05)1.54 (1.08 to 2.19)1.60 (0.87 to 2.96)
 Factor 5: EBDM climate cultivation0.84 (0.46 to 1.53)0.79 (0.49 to 1.26)1.10 (0.60 to 2.02)1.52 (0.92 to 2.51)1.38 (0.55 to 3.47)
 Factor 6: partnerships to support EBDM1.03 (0.62 to 1.73)0.97 (0.65 to 1.45)0.99 (0.59 to 1.68)1.34 (0.88 to 2.06)1.65 (0.78 to 3.48)
  • OR from unadjusted bivariate model.

  • Bold values indicate statistically significant relationships according to a n alpha=0.05 threshold.

  • *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; EBI, evidence-based intervention; LHD, local health department; PHAB, Public Health Accreditation Board.