Darren Kaw, MPH Public Health Prevention Specialist Fellow Arthritis Council Call August 3 rd, 2010 Arthritis Grantee Needs Assessment Survey Results, 2010

Outline  Background  Survey topics  Respondents’ characteristics  Results  Training needs  Top methods for technical assistance  Top needs from CDC  Top barriers  Top programmatic strengths

Survey Topics  Knowledge and Skills  Usage of current resources and tools  Technical assistance topics  Assistance  Topics respondents want to learn from peers  Partnerships  Ability to access support for programs  Barriers to partnerships with external organizations  Capacity within own state health department  Methods  Forms of live, “real time” training or TA which are appealing  Forms of self-study or TA which are appealing  Products or tools that serve as TA which are appealing

Respondent Characteristics  76% response rate (37/49)  76% of respondents were from CDC-funded programs  Most were project coordinators or managers (46%)  54% of respondents have two or less years of experience in their arthritis program

Training Needs  Topics rated as a “High need” or "Moderate need”  “Developing a business case for arthritis interventions” selected by 80% (28/35) of respondents CDC-states may see this as a higher need than AID-states Less experienced respondents may see this as a higher need than more experienced respondents.  “Using data to persuade different types of decision makers”, selected by 80% (28/35) of respondents CDC-states may see this as a higher need than AID-states More experienced respondents may see this as a higher need than less experienced respondents. * “less experienced” is defined as having two or less years experience in the respondent’s arthritis program while “more experienced is having three or more years experience

Training Needs cont’d  Topics rated as a “Low need” to learn  “Resources for managing CDC or NACDD cooperative agreements” and selected by 38% (14/37) of respondents CDC states may see this as a higher need than AID states Less experienced respondents may see this as a higher need than more experienced respondents  “Requirements for licensing of certain programs”, selected by 39% (14/36) of respondents CDC states may see this as a higher need than AID states Less experienced respondents may see this as a higher need than more experienced respondents

Training topics as indicated by respondents Topic High/moderate needLow need % of responses N N Developing a business case for arthritis interventions80%3514%35 Using data to persuade different types of decision makers80%3514%35 Embedding arthritis programs in partner systems and activities78%3711%37 Beginning to develop policy initiatives77%3511%35 Provider outreach participant recruitment strategies76%3711%37 Media advocacy74%3514%35 CDC data products and sources51%3529%35 Project management41%3435%34 Requirements for licensing of certain programs33%3639%36 Resources for managing CDC or NACDD cooperative agreements32%3738%37

Training Needs: Learning from other states  Most popular topics:  “Identifying system partners and initiating collaborations” at 74% (25/37)  “Policy or systems changes” 71% (24/37)  Least popular topics:  “Experiences using the health communication campaign” 35% (12/37)  “Maintaining and working with an arthritis-specific advisory group” 38% (13/37)

Methods: forms of live, “real time” training or technical assistance  Overall, respondents seem to find real time training or TA appealing  Most appealing forms in % “Very appealing”  “In person at grantee meeting”, 63% (22/35)  “In person as part of another meeting/conference/training session”, 57% (20/35)  “Peer-to-peer discussions and presentations”, 46% (16/35)  Least appealing in % “Not very appealing”  Arthritis Council calls and live satellite broadcast, both at14% (5/35)

Methods: forms of live, “real time” training or technical assistance  Written comments noted limitations of these training options  Grantee meeting: funding limited # of staff who could attend  Conference calls/webinars: competing sessions between different organizations and grant projects  Other issues  Suggestion of vetting process for materials to ensure they are timely, relevant, and informative  Limit length of webinars, conference calls, and media-based trainings to 45 – 60 minutes  Avoid forwarding s without context

Preferred forms of live, “real time” training or technical assistance Forms of live, “real time” training or TA Very appealing Somewhat appealing Not very appealing % of responses N N N In person at grantee meeting63%3523%353%35 In person as part of another meeting/conference/ training session57%3523%353%35 Peer-to-peer discussions and presentations46%3540%356%35 Arthritis Council calls23%3534%3514%35 Live satellite broadcast11%3551%3514%35

Methods: forms of self-study training or technical assistance  Overall, respondents seem to prefer real time training or TA more than self-study training  Most appealing forms in % “Very appealing”  “Recorded webinar”, 37% (13/35)  “Web-based interactive courses”, 29% (10/35)  Least appealing in % “Not very appealing”  “Podcasts, Twitter, Facebook, or other social media feeds or forums”, 46% (16/35)  “Web forum and/or blogs to receive and share information with peers”, 34% (12/35)

Methods: forms of self-study training or technical assistance  Written comments mentioned the difficulty in finding time to utilize these tools, but that it may be ideal for some people.  One respondent cautioned against using social media if only because it is new and exciting.

Preferred forms of self-study training or technical assistance Forms of self-study training or TA Very appealing Somewhat appealing Not very appealing % of responses N N N Recorded webinar37%3546%3511%35 Web-based interactive courses29%3546%3514%35 Podcasts, Twitter, Facebook, or other social media feeds or forums9%3514%3546%35 Web forum and/or blogs to receive and share information with peers11%3534%3534%35

Methods: Products or tools to serve technical assistance or teaching aides  Respondents want materials that can promote program effectiveness and benefits  Can be used to strengthen the need for interventions  Marketing materials  Problem with AF’s marketing tools  Desire for additional marketing tools for Enhanced Fitness, CDSMP, and other non-AF programs

Products or tools to serve as technical assistance or training aides Products/toolsVery appealing Somewhat appealing Not very appealing % of responses N N N Quick reference guides49%3540%353%35 Fact sheets37%3551%356%35 Written materials to study12%3450%3421%34 Scripts to use with partners19%3238%3216%32

Needs from CDC  Increased funding  From both AID and CDC-states, larger proportion of AID-states though  Sustainability  Federal support through CMS funds, US Preventative Task Force recommendation, data on return on investment or cost- effectiveness  Networking with other states  Seen as way to share successes, struggles, and lessons learned  Recommendation for a 2 nd grantee meeting during the year via webinar or satellite  Setting time at conference for networking

Needs from CDC  Clarity with program requirements  Requested by CDC-funded states  Several respondents would like clear language in the grant announcement regarding mandatory travel to the grantee conference  Reporting requirements not very clear Recommendation that new guidance should be communicated via teleconference or webcast along with discussion time with project officers

Top challenges faced by the program  Funding  Lack of interest or commitment from partners  Lack of funding for partners  Lack of staff time and resources to develop partnerships  Reorganization of a local AF chapter  Competition for partners for advisory groups  Turf issues from ARRA funding  Increasing the number of program participants  Several respondents identified building brand recognition as a challenge related to participant recruitment

Grantee barriers to partnership  Most common barrier  “Financial limitations within the health department” at 60% (18/30)  Least common barrier  “Lack of assistance within my own organization in creating partnership” at 10% (3/30)  Written comments focused on issues with funding and how potential partners want funding to collaborate on specific interventions. Lack of funding also affected program coordination as paid staff is needed for that work.

Top programmatic strengths  Internal partnerships  Good work coordination and support from management  External partnerships  Existing external partners strong, collaborations with faith-based partners, capitalizing on a local AF Chapter partnership  Having a network to deliver interventions and referrals  Program staff  Strong level of commitment, expertise, and understanding of arthritis

Appendix  Additional data from survey not covered in presentation

Knowledge and skills  Most commonly used tools  CDC Arthritis Web site: 89% (31/37) used it “A lot” or “Some” More experienced AID-funded respondents used the site more than less experienced AID-funded respondents* CDC-funded respondents used the site “A lot” or “Some” regardless of experience  CDC data products and sources: 84% (31/37) used it “A lot” or “Some” CDC-funded states used CDC data products more than AID-states Respondents with 3+ years of experience used CDC data products more * “less experienced” is defined as having two or less years experience in the respondent’s arthritis program while “more experienced is having three or more years experience

Knowledge and skills  Least used tool  AF Step-by-Step Partnership Guide: 43% (16/37) used it “Not at all” 27% of respondents did not know this tool existed or where to find it Respondents with 2 or less years of experience did not know this tool existed or where to find it More respondents from AID-states than CDC-states did not know this tool existed or where to find it

Respondents' current usage of available resources and tools Resource/tool A lot/Some useNot at all used Don't know where to find/existed % of responses N N N CDC Arthritis Web site89%3711%370%37 CDC data products and sources84%3711%375%37 Cooperative agreement information for state coordinators68%3719%3711%37 Online courses57%3732%3711%37 Media tools57%3624%3616%36 Partnership planning information (AF Step- by-Step Partnership Guide)30%3743%3727%37

Partnerships: Program support  For the most part, respondents were able to access support for the listed programs  Programs “usually able to” access support:  CDSMP 94% (30/32)  EnhancedFitness 81% (13/16)

Partnerships: Program support suggestions  Some respondents did not understand the question  Some were unsure if support is meant to come from the national sponsor of the program, the state chapters, or other organizations with capacity in the programs  Comments that EnhanceFitness and Fit and Strong! have good support but are only offered in a limited geographical area and not statewide like some of the others

Work within state health departments  Responses generally positive  “Always true” or "Usually true” that  Respondent able to request epidemiological support in a timely manner: 83% (29/35)  Respondent able to collaborate with other public health programs: 82% (28/34)  Respondent able to access appropriate departments, units, or staff to implement outreach through media: 65% (22/34) More respondents indicated “Neutral” for this question