256589 Qualitative Analysis of Public Health Emergency Response Site Visits Assessing Use of 2009 H1N1 Funds and Activities

Monday, October 29, 2012

Stephanie A. Dopson, MSW, MPH, ScD Candidate , Office of Infectious Diseases/Influenza Coordination Unit, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Catherine M. Bulka, BA, MPH Candidate , Office of Infectious Diseases/Influenza Coordination Unit, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Issue: CDC distributed $1.4 billion in Public Health Emergency Response funds to health departments through a cooperative agreement between July 2009 and April 2010. To assess whether the funds were used appropriately, CDC's Division of State and Local Readiness and Influenza Coordination Unit conducted site visits in 2010 and 2011 to review the impact of H1N1 funding on response activities, confirm appropriate use of funds, and identify barriers. Site visits were conducted between June 2010- September 2011. Data provided in site visit reports and questionnaires were used to assess the impact of PHER funds.

Description: Forty states across the U.S. were selected in 2010 based on specific criteria including greatest overall PHER funding, amount of expended funds, and percent of unobligated funds. In 2011 states were selected if they had not undergone a site visit in 2010. Analyses of questionnaires and reports were conducted using qualitative data analysis with information coded into the most commonly identified categories for each question.

Lessons Learned: While the majority of PHER funds were allocated to dispensing vaccine, grantees reported difficulties in reaching certain high-risk and vulnerable population groups. A streamlined budget preparedness mechanism for long-term emergency responses is needed. Few states determined the most efficient method for communicating with specific audiences. The experience with school-based vaccination clinics during the 2009 H1N1 response could be used to improve seasonal vaccination rates.

Recommendations: States should consider identified gaps during the pandemic response when revising All Hazards Plans. Issues identified during the 2009 response can be applied to other emergency responses.

Learning Areas:
Conduct evaluation related to programs, research, and other areas of practice
Protection of the public in relation to communicable diseases including prevention or control

Learning Objectives:
1. Assess the impact of funds distributed to state, local, and territorial health departments during the 2009 response to H1N1. 2. Identify barriers and successes encountered by states in pandemic planning, communication, vaccine distribution, surveillance and laboratory activities, school-based vaccination clinics during the 2009 H1N1 response.

Keywords: Emerging Diseases, Evaluation

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I have worked with state and local public health departments on public emergency preparedness and response since the 2001 Anthrax attacks in New York and New Jersey. I began working in the Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response in 2002 and currently work in the Influenza Coordination Unit as a Lead Public Health Analyst. I currently lead qualitative and quantitative evaluation projects focused on pandemic influenza and preparedness.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.