key: cord-0952315-y0i8amkp
authors: Petrovskis, Anna; Baquero, Barbara; Bekemeier, Betty
title: Involvement of Local Health Departments in Obesity Prevention: A Scoping Review
date: 2021-03-12
journal: J Public Health Manag Pract
DOI: 10.1097/phh.0000000000001346
sha: 47b9e3e658a20b5396ed049450ae89ab4390fc5e
doc_id: 952315
cord_uid: y0i8amkp

INTRODUCTION: Local health department (LHD) obesity prevention (OP) efforts, particularly by rural LHDs, are seemingly uncommon, in part, due to limited infrastructure, workforce capacity, accessible data, and available population-level interventions aimed at social determinants of health (SDOH). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to determine LHD roles in OP efforts and interventions. Inclusion criteria were articles including evidence-based OP and LHD leaders or staff. Articles were coded by type of LHD involvement, data use, intervention characteristics, use of an SDOH lens, and urban or rural setting. RESULTS: We found 154 articles on LHD OP—52 articles met inclusion criteria. Typically, LHDs engaged in only surveillance, initial intervention development, or evaluation and were not LHD led. Data and SDOH lens use were infrequent, and interventions typically took place in urban settings. CONCLUSION: LHDs could likely play a greater role in OP and population-level interventions and use data in intervention decision making. However, literature is limited. Future research should focus on LHD capacity building, including academic-public health partnerships. Studies should include rural populations, data, and SDOH frameworks addressing “upstream” factors.

widening gap in rural-urban health disparities, 18 paired with limited rural LHD capacity and information technology, 7, 11 hinders LHDs in their efforts to improve population health.

Given these disparities and the need for local preventive interventions by LHDs, we conducted a scoping review to examine how LHDs are engaged in OP activity in their jurisdictions. We sought to understand the type of LHD involvement in OP, data use by LHDs to address OP, intervention characteristics, use of an SDOH lens, and urban and rural differences. Our study did not undergo University of Washington Institution Review Board review, as it was not human subjects research.

The scoping review approach differs from other types of literature reviews by addressing broad topics (ie, all OP interventions rather than nutrition or PA alone) and not assessing study quality. [19] [20] [21] [22] We conducted a scoping review because we were particularly interested in evidence about LHD involvement in OP. We followed the Arksey and O'Malley 19 methodological framework to guide our review. It consists of a 6-stage process: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; and (6) an optional consultation exercise.

We identified articles through Web-based searches and bibliography reviews 19 (see Supplemental Digital Content Figure, available at http://links.lww.com/ JPHMP/A771) and included key terms from previously reviewed literature on LHDs and OP. The most relevant terms were "obesity," "public health," "local health department," "health planning guidelines," "community health services," "decision-making," and "nutrition policy." After reviewing search results, articles specifically involving "local health departments" and "obesity prevention" terms were used to search PubMed and Scopus, as this yielded the most studies with explicit LHD involvement. Other meshed terms resulted in community-only studies, or studies with academic partnerships, rather than LHDs. Reference lists of the searched articles were manually reviewed using a snowball technique 19 and our inclusion criteria. An expert librarian from the University of Washington Health Sciences Library also peer reviewed our terms and search strategies. E-mail alerts were set to monitor new articles.

Database searches using key terms "local health departments" and "obesity prevention" yielded 76 results in PubMed and 55 results in Scopus, totaling 131 articles. An additional 23 articles were included through manual search strategies, totaling 154 articles. After duplicates (n = 44) were removed, articles were screened and 58 did not meet inclusion criteria regarding LHD involvement in community OP efforts. This left 52 publications in the final review (see Supplemental Digital Content Figure 1 , available at http://links.lww.com/JPHMP/A771).

Publications were included if key stakeholders included LHD staff or it was stated that an LHD was involved in the OP efforts. All articles were peer reviewed and published from 2010 to July 2020. Only studies in English and conducted in the United States were included, as health department organization, structure, and responsibility vary greatly worldwide. 23 We included articles that were research studies, as well as practice-based descriptions of an intervention or program evaluation. This latter inclusion allowed for the broadest possible universe of articles that described LHD OP partnerships and interventions to provide a full assessment of literature describing LHDs and OP. Both quantitative and qualitative publications were included. Some studies were found through manual searches of "Communities Putting Prevention to Work" programs, as these Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grants aimed to reduce obesity in communities. 24 

We used the US Department of Health and Human Services' Public Health 3.0 framework, and its attention to addressing SDOH, to frame our approach in our scoping review. 25 Public Health 3.0 guides LHD leaders toward population health approaches that focus on data-driven decisions, evidence-based interventions, and local capacity building. 25 It emphasizes implementing population-level interventions, engaging multiple sectors and community partners to generate collective impact, and addressing health through SDOH. 25 The Public Health 3.0 framework also indicates that "timely, reliable, granular-level (ie, subcounty), and actionable data should be made accessible to communities" 25(p4) for targeting SDOH and to build health equity. LHDs are increasingly using Public Health 3.0 as a means for driving their agency's approach to health equity, systems change, and population health improvement in their jurisdictions. 26, 27 The first (A.P.) and second (B.B.) authors reviewed the articles. The first author abstracted and coded information from articles, and the second author acted as secondary reviewer and coded a subsample of articles for intercoder reliability. The 2 reviewers agreed on 93% of reviewed codes. Areas of disagreement were discussed. Data were compiled into a table to track author, year, study type, sample, setting, purpose, and findings. Five main categories were selected to accomplish the scoping review: type of LHD involvement, intervention characteristics, data use, use of an SDOH lens, and urban versus rural setting (Table) . LHD involvement was given a value of 0, 1, 2, or U (unknown), with 2 considered the highest level. Within intervention characteristics, we subcoded interventions based on CDC-recommended obesity interventions and strategies. 28 Intervention characteristics were coded for all subcategories and typically did not fall into one category alone. Specific characteristics are further detailed in Supplemental Digital Content Table 3 (available at http://links.lww.com/JPHMP/ A772). Data use and SDOH lens were coded yes or no, and setting was coded urban, rural, or mixed. City and county LHDs were included on the basis of governmental structure of the state, and LHDs were defined as urban or rural based on population sizes used in the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) codebook. 29 Study setting was coded mixed urban/rural when the study included jurisdictions of both population sizes. The table was uploaded into Excel for validation and coding (see Supplemental Digital Content Table 3 , available at http://links.lww.com/JPHMP/A772).

The 52 publications reviewed were experimental or nonexperimental research studies, intervention descriptions, and evaluation studies that focused on LHD OP (see Supplemental Digital Content Table 2 , available at http://links.lww.com/JPHMP/A773). Most were cross-sectional studies (n = 27), case studies (n = 13), and evaluations (n = 16). Our review included 1 randomized controlled trial. Most publications (n = 43) described the type of LHD involvement; however, LHD involvement was unknown for some (n = 9). Most studies were either in an urban setting (n = 26) or a mixed urban/rural setting (n = 20). Half the studies described using data in their intervention development or implementation (n = 26) and about half indicated using an SDOH lens (n = 29).

The type of LHD involvement varied widely between publications. Publications that only included LHDs conducting surveillance or minimal technical support (n = 0) were approximately 8% (4/52) of publications. [30] [31] [32] [33] For example, LHD staff were described in these publications as acting only as consultants, not collaborators or implementers. This role included, for example, providing obesity surveillance data to schools implementing OP interventions. 31 It was unclear who led these interventions (eg, setting school meal nutrition standards), but LHDs were described as only providing data. Similarly, New York City's LHD was described as disseminating information on required policy changes, including reducing screen time and sugary beverages in child care centers. 32 Of the 52 publications, approximately 42% (22/52) had LHD involvement in initial intervention development or intervention and program evaluation (n = 1). 26, For example, one study examined built environment interventions across LHDs to understand the degree to which LHDs engaged in these interventions and what factors helped and hindered their activity. 51 Another study developed a lexicon of existing LHD policy, systems, and environment (PSE) interventions to better assist other LHDs in PSE changes and develop future PSE interventions addressing obesity among SNAP-Ed participants. 44 Other publications included LHD leaders on their programs' steering committees to conduct research on community needs and develop interventions alongside community or academic partners. 49, 52 LHDs fully engaged (n = 2) throughout the OP activity accounted for approximately 33% (17/52) of publications. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] For example, LHDs led interventions using Geographic Information System to better understand social factors related to food access and to develop community interventions. 56, 67 Using dashboard data, the North Carolina Division of Public Health was able to show its state's low ranking for PA among people living near a park, prioritizing this issue in funding and grant applications. 67 Another study maintained an LHD partnership throughout the intervention process with a faith-based organization using community-based participatory research and evaluation approaches. 71 Three other publications included LHD-school partnerships to develop healthier lunch menus and nutrition education, although LHD staff were not specified. 55, 64, 67 LHD involvement was unknown (U) in approximately 17% (9/52) of publications due to lack of description in their methods. 14, 15, [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] These unknown studies typically used large data sets, such as the NACCHO Profile of Local Health Departments Survey 29 that broadly asks LHD leaders about nutrition, PA, and policy interventions (among other topics) in their jurisdictions. Although the NACCHO Profile Survey asks whether OP activities are "LHD led," 29 the survey does not state how extensively LHDs engage in the particular OP activity or whether the LHD monitors or evaluates the intervention.

Secondary data sources were used in approximately 50% (26/52) of publications. * Eight publications utilized NACCHO data examining LHD OP activity. 14, 15, 36, 51, 54, 65, 74, 76 The OP portion of the NAC-CHO Profile Survey asked LHDs whether they were actively involved in specific evidence-based strategies, including, for example, policy and advocacy in community-level urban design, school policies, recreation, nutritional labeling, fruit and vegetable availability, and/or policies to promote breastfeeding. 29 Some studies (n = 3) utilized Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data, examining individual health behaviors and disease prevalence. 15, 45, 74 Three studies used clinic data such as obesity prevalence, blood pressure surveillance, and youth risk behavior data from schools to implement obesity interventions. 30, 31, 34 Kern et al 31 specifically used obesity surveillance data to evaluate school-based intervention efficacy.

Ten publications employed other types of data sets such as geographical data, 56 CDC's Data, Trends, and Maps dashboard with state-specific PA, obesity, nutrition, and breastfeeding data, 67 data from Public Health Activities and Services Tracking studies, 45 and Prevention Impact Simulation Model (PRISM) data. 54 The PRISM model, simulated projected outcomes including changes in obesity and health behaviors, based on PSE interventions in Los Angeles' LHD. Another study consolidated mapped CDC data on breastfeeding rates and SDOH (ie, food or PA access) to improve data accessibility and use among LHDs for improved priority setting and OP policy development. 67 A different study developed a taxonomy for LHDs using SNAP-Ed to standardize SNAP-Ed reporting and intervention selection. 44 Fifty percent (26/52) of the publications did not mention using data to develop or implement OP interventions. † Some publications described difficulties in measuring OP implementation and effectiveness across LHDs. 15, 32, 52, 74, 76 Interventions varied between LHDs or sometimes were nonexperimental in design. 76 Others reported missing data, often among marginalized groups most affected by SDOH, 56 as well data limitations for measuring OP activity. 15

Intervention characteristics varied widely. Surveillance measures to address OP were cited in approximately 27% (14/52) of studies. ‡ Studies most often used NACCHO or BRFSS data to measure OP activity and obesity prevalence.

Nutrition interventions were the most commonly cited OP intervention, accounting for 75% (39/52) of publications. § Nutrition interventions varied widely and included healthy food access, such as increasing fruit and vegetable availability and providing food assistance, 35, 43, 48, 50, 54, 63 farmers' market interventions, 39,58,77 SNAP-Ed interventions, 37, 44, 46, 78 and school gardens. 34, 37, 43, 52, 68, 69 One study analyzed one county's interventions, which included restricting unhealthy foods served at venues operated by county government, cities, and schools. 54 Physical activity interventions were cited in approximately 54% (28/52) of publications, ¶ some in conjunction with nutrition interventions. Interventions included exercise programs, 32,45,57,59,68,71 recreation facility access, 51 school-based programs, 32, 52, 55, 59, 61 and built environment interventions. 26, 37, 39, 45, 51, 61 The only randomized controlled trial identified was a PA intervention through 6 LHDs in North Carolina. 57 Another study developed and examined PA classes and walking groups through a faith-based organization. 49 Existing partnerships or partnership development to implement OP interventions were noted in approximately 69% (36/52) of publications. One study cited cross-jurisdictional resource-sharing to increase LHD participation in OP activity. 72 Another report described a co-mentoring program between LHDs and local entities including government agencies, community organizations, and academic institutions to better combine expertise to implement built environment interventions. 37 Of the 52 publications, approximately 52% (27/52) described efforts in policy development and implementation for OP. # Policies varied but were often developed alongside nutrition interventions. These included policies for food store produce availability, 54 school-based nutrition, 32, 39, 40, 44, [52] [53] [54] [55] 69 vending machines, 41,58,69 menu labeling, 39, 68, 70, 72 and limiting sugary beverages. 14, 15, 54, 72 Some studies also cited PA policies. 51, 68 Fifty percent of publications (26/52) included built environment interventions. * * These included ‡ References 14, 15, 30, 34, 36, 37, 45, 47, 55, 56, 64, 67, 74, 78. § References 14, 15, 31, 32, 35, [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] 46, [48] [49] [50] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [62] [63] [64] [65] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] ¶ References 14, 15, 31, 32, 39, [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] 49, [52] [53] [54] [55] 57, [59] [60] [61] 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, [74] [75] [76] 78 . References 26, [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] 43, [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] 66, [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] 77, 78. # References 14, 15, 26, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39-43, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55,  58, 59, 62, 63, 67, 69-72, 75 . * * References 14, 15, 26, 35, 37, 39, 41-45, 48, 50, 51, 54-56, 58,  59, 61-63, 65, 68, 77 54 advertising/campaigns, 31, 71 and gardens. 34, 37, 43, 52, 68, 69 One study, for example, developed a school health council to implement a garden, healthy food options at school events, PA programs, and advertising about their health council. 52 All publications with pediatric populations were in school-based settings.

Breastfeeding interventions were cited in approximately 12% (6/52) of the publications. 14, 15, 54, 58, 67, 72 Kuo et al, 54 for example, described lactation rooms provided for mothers to facilitate breastfeeding as part of the "Communities Putting Prevention to Work" initiative.

Approximately 56% of publications (29/52) explicitly described SDOH as relating to obesity prevalence in their background sections (see Supplemental Digital Content Table 3 , available at http://links.lww. com/JPHMP/A772). § § The SDOH most frequently cited included socioeconomic status, 54 neighborhood safety, 56 health care access, 43 built environment, 37, 45 food access, 39, 42 and social support networks. 49, 71 Studies often focused on populations with lowsocioeconomic status, 15, 46, 68 for example, assessing facilitators and barriers in SNAP-Ed interventionsa program (SNAP-Ed) only available to low-income families. 46 Another study developed and evaluated a community health assessment in California, which included SDOH questions addressing job opportunity, poverty, and homelessness. 66 The assessment was then used to implement OP interventions. 66 Other studies implemented and evaluated food access interventions in schools with disproportionately low access to healthy foods 31 and evaluated a county's distribution of built environment interventions, including access to farmers' markets and gardens. 58 Another report described the nationwide Built Environment Mentoring Program, where LHDs partnered with professionals in local agencies, such as transportation departments, to combine expertise in creating built environment interventions to decrease obesity. 37 in rural Washington State developed bike lanes and green spaces to increase PA access. 65

Publications examining rural-specific populations or jurisdictions accounted for approximately 12% (6/52) of publications. 30, 53, 65, 66, 72, 77 Most publications (∼88%; 46/52) examined either urban populations (n = 26) ¶ ¶ or mixed urban/rural populations (n = 20). Studies with mixed urban/rural populations often had large LHD sample sizes, for example, studies using NACCHO data, examining hundreds of LHDs. It was sometimes unclear how many LHDs in these studies served rural populations if descriptive statistics were not provided.

The results of this review suggest that many LHDs do have experience in OP and some are actively engaged. However, specific types of LHD involvement were often unknown due to limited intervention detail or involvement is limited, with only 17 publications citing full LHD engagement in OP.

Our review found few publications with full LHD engagement, as LHD-led interventions were infrequent (∼33%; 17/52). This is consistent with a 2019 study finding that 46.1% of LHDs reporting no OP activity in 2016. 14 Obesity prevention activity with LHD involvement is, nonetheless, more widely occurring than is apparent in peer-reviewed journals; however, the limited literature is a barrier to the evidence needed to guide practice. Effective OP should include interventions related to a specific SDOH, relevant to a community's needs, and inclusive of LHDs that bring data, evidence, and partnerships together. Such an approach includes interventions using an SDOH framework that are aimed at structural change, rather than individual-focused interventions. A study by Bekemeier et al 45 showed that more comprehensive, community-wide interventions by LHDs, including built environment approaches, were significantly associated with lower obesity prevalence. The Public Health 3.0 framework would suggest that OP interventions by LHDs should be grounded in SDOH data and emphasize the factors that underlie obesity disparities. Many publications in our review did create interventions in hopes of ameliorating a disparity. ¶ ¶ References 26, [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] 37, 38, 44, [48] [49] [50] 52, 54, 55, 57, 58,  However, many did not cite or emphasize the underlying SDOH (eg, socioeconomic status or the built environment).

A driving force for level of LHD engagement in some cases could be "Communities Putting Prevention to Work" and Community Transformation Grants. 35, 39, 54, 61, 68, 77 These funding sources were mentioned in 6 studies and were important national efforts by the CDC to address obesity through PSE changes. Often it was difficult to otherwise tell whether funding existed for OP efforts; however, many cited external grants such as the Childhood Research Obesity Demonstration and private funding such as through the California Endowment. Some interventions with academic-LHD partnerships included funding from academic institutions. Sustaining grant-funded interventions was cited as a barrier in several projects. 49, 55, 62 However, cost-effective strategies, such as partnerships, 60 and incorporating OP into LHDs' strategic plans 59 showed potential for sustainability.

Only half of publications (26/52) described using data in their intervention development or evaluation despite surveillance and intervention development being a key responsibility of LHDs. 80 Data for evidence-based decision making are important for effective population-level interventions 25 and should be particularly critical for LHDs needing to make highest and best use of their limited capacity and funding. 7 Moreover, studies we examined that did use surveillance data for examining prevalence did not always speak to subsequent obesity interventions or policy, or detail the data's impact on decision making.

The apparent use of data in relation to OP specifically among rural LHDs was particularly lacking, with only one of the 6 rural-focused studies describing data utilization. 72 Often, rural LHDs develop community interventions or policies, using the evidence generated from urban populations, as urban data are often more accessible or where resources support strong evaluations and research. 17 These urban data and the evidence generated, however, may not be relevant to application in rural communities.

Although we had particular interest in rural LHDs, few rural-focused publications were identified, perhaps, in part, due to a lack of academic partnership. Many studies, however, had mixed settings that included rural and urban LHDs. However, the number of rural LHDs in mixed studies often remained unknown and studies did not always analyze results by population size. As a result, gaps remain regarding rural-specific tailored interventions and LHDs' involvement. Academic partnerships with LHDs may help facilitate research and publications with regard to OP, and these partnerships might be more prevalent

■ Increasing LHD involvement in OP interventions may improve population health, as LHDs can provide critical surveillance support regarding population-level needs and can partner with other policy makers to implement OP policies as long as data are accessible and relevant.

■ Rural jurisdictions need resources, data, and support in the development of OP interventions to serve their communities and address rural disparities.

■ LHDs appear to need a means of support to access and use data in intervention development and implementation to effectively focus limited resources on the populations in greatest need.

■ Using an SDOH framework to comprehensively address underlying causes of obesity would advance the efforts of LHD involvement in OP interventions in their communities.

■ COVID-19 has exposed a weakened and underresourced public health and population health infrastructure and exacerbated health disparities. 81 The pandemic has also highlighted the profound links between (1) obesity and chronic disease, (2) infectious disease, and (3) SDOH such as housing, working conditions, rurality, and access to health, 82 which must be the basis for future LHD-led interventions.

in urban settings. Studies also suggest that chronic disease prevention interventions may be lacking in rural areas due to particularly challenging rural funding, workforce capacity, and data accessibility. 11, 17, 53 In light of already limited rural LHD capacity and resources, 18 coupled with health disparities, this review suggests a need for further evidence regarding OP aimed at SDOH in rural settings. Our study had limitations. It is important to note our exclusion of the term "rural" in our search. "Rural"-specific publications resulted in several studies in the community but did not describe LHD involvement. Thus, community-based interventions exist but a gap in understanding LHD-community partnerships remains. This is important, given widening rural health disparities and the emphasis on partnership, SDOH, and evidence-based interventions in the Public Health 3.0 framework. 25 Our expanded search, therefore, included mixed urban/rural-setting publications to expand what could be known about rural OP activities. The scoping review approach is also relatively narrow and addresses specific questions, typically excluding study quality. Finally, most publications in our sample were either descriptive cross-sectional or single case studies. Despite these limitations, our review describes the published literature regarding LHD OP activity.

Our review found that LHDs do have experience in OP and some are actively engaged. But we have highlighted a gap in the literature regarding how LHDs engage in OP, particularly in rural areas where academic partnerships, and thus research or evaluation publications, may not be as robust. The existing disparities related to obesity underscore the urgency for generating OP evidence for public health practice and for facilitating the uptake of effective interventions to support data-driven OP interventions that address SDOH.

Trends in food insecurity for adults with cardiometabolic disease in the United States

Life expectancy and mortality rates in the United States

Exploring racial disparity in obesity: a mediation analysis considering geo-coded environmental factors

Obesity and physical inactivity in rural America

The double disparity facing rural local health departments

The obesity epidemic in the United States-gender, age, socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and geographic characteristics: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Food insecurity and adult overweight/obesity: gender and race/ethnic disparities

Obesity and obesity-related behaviors among rural and urban adults in the USA

Data, capacity-building, and training needs to address rural health inequities in the Northwest United States: a qualitative study

Rural Healthy People 2020: new decade, same challenges

Social determinants of health and the effects on quality of life and well-being in 2 rural Appalachia communities: the community members' perspective and implications for health disparities

Fighting obesity at the local level? An analysis of predictors of local health department policy involvement

Obesity prevention: the impact of local health departments

Local public health resource allocation: limited choices and strategic decisions

Challenges of health measurement in studies of health disparities

The growing divide in the composition of public health delivery systems in US rural and urban communities

Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency

International differences in medical care practices. Health Care Financ Rev

Fifty communities putting prevention to work: accelerating chronic disease prevention through policy, systems and environmental change

Public Health 3.0: a call to action for public health to meet the challenges of the 21st century

Developing core capabilities for local health departments to engage in land use and transportation decision making for active transportation

Time to modernize: local public health transitions to populationlevel interventions

Prevention Strategies & Guidelines

National Association of County and City Health Officials

Community views and public health priority setting: how do health department priorities, community views, and health indicator data compare?

Declines in student obesity prevalence associated with a prevention initiative

Insights and implications for health departments from the evaluation of New York City's regulations on nutrition, physical activity, and screen time in child care centers

Multisector health policy networks in 15 large US cities

A collaborative approach to childhood obesity surveillance from a local health department

Development of a community-sensitive strategy to increase availability of fresh fruits and vegetables in Nashville's urban food deserts

Variation in delivery of the 10 essential public health services by local health departments for obesity control in 2005 and

Developing built environment programs in local health departments: lessons learned from a nationwide mentoring program

The pediatric obesity initiative: development, implementation, and evaluation

Evolution in obesity and chronic disease prevention practice in California public health departments

Leaders' experiences in planning, implementing, and evaluating complex public health nutrition interventions

The role of community, state, territorial, and tribal public health in obesity prevention

State practitioner insights into local public health challenges and opportunities in obesity prevention: a qualitative study

Patterns and correlates of use of evidence-based interventions to control diabetes by local health departments across the USA

The added value of establishing a lexicon to help inform, compare, and better understand the implementation of policy, systems, and environmental change strategies in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education

Five community-wide approaches to physical activity promotion: a cluster analysis of these activities in local health jurisdictions in 6 states

Restructuring a state nutrition education and obesity prevention program: implications of a local health department model for SNAP-Ed

Development of a survey to assess local health department organizational processes and infrastructure for supporting obesity prevention

Changes in food and beverage environments after an urban corner store intervention

A community-partnered approach to developing church-based interventions to reduce health disparities among African-Americans and Latinos

Process evaluation of Baltimore Healthy Stores: a pilot health intervention program with supermarkets and corner stores in Baltimore city

Local health department engagement in community physical activity policy

School health councils. A healthy initiative in Monmouth County

Diabetes-related services and programs in small local public health departments

Framing the local context and estimating the health impact of CPPW obesity prevention strategies in Los Angeles County

The role of state health departments in supporting community-based obesity prevention

Using geographic information systems and local food store data in California's low-income neighborhoods to inform community initiatives and resources

Translation of a behavioral weight loss intervention for mid-life, low-income women in local health departments

An approach to assessing multicity implementation of healthful food access policy, systems, and environmental changes

Design of the Massachusetts Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (MA-CORD) study

The process of integrating an evidence-based intervention into a public health department to improve nutrition and physical activity behaviors in parents and children

Increasing physical activity in under-resourced communities through school-based, joint-use agreements

A multi-stakeholder evaluation of the Baltimore city virtual supermarket program

Evaluation of the first U.S. staple foods ordinance: impact on nutritional quality of food store offerings, customer purchases and home food environments

An innovative method of measuring changes in access to healthful foods in school lunch programs: findings from a pilot evaluation

Implementing the ACHIEVE model to prevent and reduce chronic disease in rural Klickitat County

Development and implementation of a community health survey for public health accreditation: case study from a rural county in California

Data for decision-making: exploring the division of nutrition, physical activity, and obesity's data, trends, and maps

Two North Carolina public health departments taking steps toward sustainable communities

Early outcomes of state public health actions' school nutrition strategies

The unique authority of state and local health departments to address obesity

Promoting congregant health in faith-based organizations across Los Angeles County

Cross-jurisdictional resource sharing in local health departments: implications for services, quality, and cost. Front Public Health

Accredited health department partnerships to improve health: an analysis of community health assessments and improvement plans

Where is obesity prevention on the map?

NACCHO resources help local health departments fight obesity

Obesity prevention and diabetes screening at local health departments

Assessing preliminary impact of the North Carolina Community Transformation Grant project farmers' market initiatives among rural residents

Approaches to measuring the extent and impact of environmental change in three California community-level obesity prevention initiatives

Local health departments' engagement in addressing health disparities: the effect of health informatics

The public health system & the 10 essential public health services

Hollowed-out public health system faces more cuts amid virus

COVID-19 exacerbating inequalities in the US