|
|
||||||||
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
The authors are with the University of Washington, Seattle.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Roger A. Rosenblatt, MD, MPH, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Box 354696, Seattle, WA 98195-4696 (e-mail: rosenb{at}u.washington.edu).
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This study provided quantitative, population-based data on the supply and composition of the rural public health workforce in 3 extremely rural states: Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming. The study focused on the relative supply of personnel in the principal public health occupational categories, differences across states in staffing levels, and difficulties experienced in recruiting and retaining personnel.
| METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The survey instrument was based on work performed by the American Public Health Association,4,5 as modified by the Center for Health Policy Study of the University of Texas.6 The survey was mailed directly to the administrator of every local health department in 1999 and 2000. We used follow-up contacts until every local health department had responded, for a 100% response.
We defined a local health department as rural if it was within a county with fewer than 50 000 people. In Alaska, which does not have county governments, we designated the Anchorage and Fairbanks local health departments as urban.
In every state, some local services are also provided by state or regional public health personnel. We specifically excluded those personnel from the calculations that follow. We also excluded environmental health personnel from the analyses that follow.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The supply of professional public health personnel, excluding environmental health workers, was virtually identical across states on a per capita basis. Despite different organizational formats across states, local health departments had approximately 31 full-time equivalents for every 100 000 residents, or approximately 1 local health department professional for every 3225 residents. This remarkable uniformity in workforce supply represents the product of convergent evolution, because no joint planning is done across any of these states' boundaries.
Alaska and Wyoming actually had a greater relative supply of public health professionals in the rural compared with the urban areas, as can be seen in Table 1
. Rural local health departments tend to have fewer support staff. The major ruralurban differences lie in the size of the populations served and the number of people who work in the local health departments. Rural local health departments in these 3 states are very small, serving on average slightly more than 10 000 people, with about 5 working public health professionals in a typical office. Virtually all local health department professional personnel in rural Alaska are full-time; by contrast, most rural public health personnel in Montana work part-time, with Wyoming between these 2 extremes.
|
|
In the 3 states we studied, rural local health departments had relatively few vacancies. Whereas 70% of the urban local health departments were recruiting for public health nurses, only 21% of the rural local health departments had a similar vacancy. Nurse practitioners were the most difficult professionals to recruit. Ruralurban differences showed no clear pattern. Where recruitment was difficult, low salaries, difficulty finding qualified local professionals, and problems attracting personnel were reported to be common.
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
RuralUrban Differences
This study showed that the per capita supply of public health personnel was similar in the rural and urban places we studied. The differences were more subtle. Rural public health personnel were less likely to have formal public health training and experience and more likely to be employed part-time. Perhaps more important, rural public health personnel had a much smaller team of people with whom to interact and a much narrower range of public health skills represented in the local office.
Personnel shortages are relatively infrequent, even in the most remote rural areas. Many of the rural public health workers have been in these positions for long periods. The challenges of continuing education and further training can be immense, but rural public health workers tend to stay in their local communities.
Formal input to the rural local health department team from physicians and dentists is virtually nonexistent. Most rural local health departments have a volunteer physician who can sign death certificates or attend an occasional meeting. Our results conform almost exactly with those of the 1 other comprehensive national study that examined small local health departments.7 These authors concluded that there is a weakness in the "front lines" of public health; our results would certainly support that conclusion.
The rural public health system is small and isolated, but so are many other public functions located in rural communities. For these professionals to be effectiveand to survive their often-stressful jobsthey must be connected with other professionals at the local, regional, and state levels. Our impression is that where the state plays a large role in organizing and running the system, local public health workers feel much more to be a part of something larger than themselves. Where state involvement is less pervasive, local health department staff feel much more uncertain and alone.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
Accepted for publication November 6, 2001.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Turnock BJ. Public Health: What It Is and How It Works. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen Publishers; 1997.
3. Slifkin RT, Silberman P, Reif S. The Effect of Market Reform on Rural Public Health Departments. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Rural Health Research Program, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina; 2000. Working Paper 65.
4. de la Puente JL. Determination of Supply of and Requirements for Public/Community Health Personnel. Final Report. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1984. Contract No. HRA-240-83-0078.
5. de la Puente JL. Survey of Public Health/Community Health Personnel. Final Report. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1983. Contract No. HRA-232-81-0056.
6. Kennedy VC, Spears WD, Loe HD Jr, Moore FI. Public health workforce information: a state-level study. J Public Health Manage Pract.1999;5(3):1019.[Medline]
7. Gerzoff RB, Brown CK, Baker EL. Full-time employees of US local health departments, 19921993. J Public Health Manage Pract.1999;5(3):19.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |