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)
TotalDPP‡CHWs§DSME¶Identify**All four
Respondent characteristics
Age group (years), n (%)
 20–2997 (78)7 (78)8 (89)7 (78)6 (67)
 30–395747 (82)35 (61)42 (78)37 (69)22 (39)
 40–497362 (85)52 (71)64 (89)51 (72)38 (52)
 50–596754 (81)37 (55)51 (80)39 (63)22 (33)
 60+3326 (79)12 (36)25 (76)17 (52)7 (21)
 Pearson’s χ2 p0.93 0.01 0.360.27 0.01
Race/Ethnicity, n (%)
 White203167 (82)118 (58)162 (83)125 (64)76 (37)
 Black/African–American1714 (82)11 (65)14 (82)13 (76)9 (53)
 Other race1410 (71)9 (64)9 (64)9 (69)6 (43)
 Hispanic or Latino55 (100)5 (100)5 (100)4 (80)4 (80)
 Pearson’s χ2 p0.540.270.250.670.16
Sex, n (%)
 Male3631 (86)22 (61)31 (91)25 (78)16 (44)
 Female202165 (82)120 (59)158 (80)126 (64)79 (39)
 Pearson’s χ2 p0.520.850.130.120.55
Master’s degree or higher in any field (n%)
 No11085 (77)70 (64)87 (83)68 (66)46 (42)
 Yes126108 (86)71 (56)100 (81)80 (65)47 (37)
 Pearson’s χ2 p0.090.250.670.880.48
Public health master’s or doctorate, n (%)
 No170139 (82)105 (62)138 (84)109 (67)70 (41)
 Yes6654 (82)36 (55)49 (77)39 (61)23 (35)
 Pearson’s χ2 p0.990.310.210.370.37
Position, n (%)
 Top executive, health director/officer/commissioner6053 (88)30 (50)50 (83)44 (73)25 (42)
 Administrator, deputy or assistant director 5341 (77) 37 (70)44 (83)37 (70)25 (47)
 Manager of a division or program 8372 (87) 51 (61)67 (84)46 (58)30 (36)
 Program coordinator 2721 (78) 16 (59)19 (76)18 (75)12 (44)
 Technical expert position (evaluator, epidemiologist, health educator)/other 169 (56) 9 (56)10 (71)6 (46)3 (19)
 Pearson’s χ2 p 0.02  0.310.750.130.29
Years in current position, n (%)
 <5 135112 (83) 90 (67)108 (82)90 (70)63 (47)
 5–9 5748 (84) 34 (60)47 (84)34 (61)21 (37)
 10–19 3123 (74) 16 (52)22 (73)16 (55)8 (26)
 20+ 1513 (87) 3 (20)13 (87)11 (73)3 (20)
 Pearson’s χ2 p0.620.00 0.590.340.05
Years in public health, n (%)
 <5 2822 (79) 23 (82)23 (85)21 (78)17 (61)
 5–9 3833 (87) 23 (61)30 (81)25 (68)15 (39)
 10–19 8165 (80) 44 (54)67 (85)53 (68)32 (40)
 20+ 9176 (84) 53 (58)70 (79)52 (60)31 (34)
 Pearson’s χ2 p0.77 0.070.730.340.10
Short Grit Scale, mean (SE)
 Not offered3.96 (0.48) 4.03 (0.49)4.01 (0.52)3.95 (0.50)4.00 (0.48)
 Offered4.00 (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) 7958 (73) 45 (57)62 (81)48 (63)30 (38)
  Medium (50 000–199 999) 7564 (85) 42 (56)60 (82)51 (71)32 (43)
  Large (200 000+) 8473 (87) 56 (67)67 (83)51 (64)33 (39)
  Pearson’s χ2 p0.05 0.310.930.550.83
 PHAB-accredited or preparing to apply, n (%)
  Currently accredited 6959 (86) 46 (67)55 (81)45 (67)26 (38)
  Recently applied but not yet accredited 2824 (86) 18 (64)23 (85)18 (67)13 (46)
  Yes, but have not yet applied 4336 (84) 26 (60)34 (85)21 (55)16 (37)
  No 7861 (78) 39 (50)62 (79)52 (67)29 (37)
  Unsure 2116 (76) 14 (67)16 (84)15 (79)11 (52)
  Pearson’s χ2 p0.71 0.270.930.490.67
 Currently participate in academic partnerships, n (%)
  Yes 173146 (84) 108 (62)143 (85)115 (69)75 (43)
  No/Unsure 6550 (77) 35 (54)47 (76)36 (59)20 (31)
  Pearson’s χ2 p0.18 0.230.120.160.08
 Diabetes prevalence in the state, mean (SE)
  Not offered8.91 (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 offered0.01 (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 offered0.08 (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 difference0.05 (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.