Frances D. Butterfoss, PhD¹, Diane O. Dunet, MPA, PhD², Robin Hamre, RD, MPH³, and Sarah Kuester, MS, RD². (1) Health Promotion/Disease Prevention, Center for Pediatric Research, Eastern Virginia Medical School, 855 W. Brambleton Ave, Norfolk, VA 23510, 757-668-6429, fbutterf@chkd.com, (2) National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mail Stop K-26, Atlanta, GA 30341-3719, (3) Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE MS K-46, Atlanta, GA 30341

Background: State planning activities for chronic disease prevention engage considerable resources and assume that better plans will result in better health outcomes. Evaluation of the relationship of public health planning to health outcomes has been limited by the lack of instruments to objectively assess the quality of state plans. Methods: The SPI is a 9-component, 60-item instrument to assess quality of state obesity prevention plans and is based on public health theory, practice, testing and the expert opinion of federal, state, and academic partners. An iterative, participatory process was used to engage stakeholders in developing and testing the instrument. Two rounds of field testing with 19 raters and 10 state plans were conducted to test and refine the instrument. Results: Pilot testers indicated the instrument was easy to use and helped them to distinguish quality among plans. Mean component scores for the 10 state plans ranged from 0.2 to 4.8. Inter-rater reliability was acceptable; inter-class correlations averaged 0.57 (median=0.61). Cronbach alpha scores ranged from .80 -.90. Correlations between raters’ component and overall scores were statistically significant (p<.01), except for one component. Discussion: The SPI is a well-grounded and reliable instrument, adaptable for various chronic diseases. Since the SPI was created by practitioners and researchers, buy-in and acceptance is high. Conclusion: The SPI is useful for evaluating plan quality and as a framework for plan development. Long term, the SPI can be used to assess the relationship of state planning activities to long-term health outcomes.

Learning Objectives: At the end of this session, participants will be able to

• List the attributes of a quality state prevention plan
• Use the SPI to develop a quality state plan for chronic disease prevention (e.g., for obesity)
• Use the SPI to evaluate the quality of a state obesity prevention plan

Keywords: Quality Assurance, Chronic Diseases

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity
I have a significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.
Relationship: ORISE Fellowship with the Cneters for Dissease Control and Prevention to develop the SPI instrument