Modelos amplios de tipificación

A total of 46 state and local health department officials participated in the focus group discussions that made up the second phase of the study (Table 2). Half of the study participants were recipients of CRSCI funding to implement BRACE (referred to hereafter as “CRSCI

grantees”). The majority of CRSCI grantee focus groups were with state-level officials, however one focus group was conducted with officials from a city that received CRSCI funding directly from CDC, and one focus group was with officials from county health departments that received CRSCI funding through their state health departments.

The other half of the study focus group population comprised local health officials that have not yet implemented BRACE (hereafter referred to as “local health officials”). These officials represent target beneficiaries for future CDC BRACE activities. They comprised local health officials from a mix of county and city health departments, as well as consolidated regional health departments that had responsibility either for multiple counties-“Regional (County)”- or a city and its surrounding county, “Regional (City/ County)”. Combined, focus group participants in the study represented 22 states: Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Table 2. Description of Study Participants in Focus Group Discussions Jurisdiction No. of Participants

(CRSCI Grantees)

No. of Participants (Local Health

Officials)

Total No. of States Represented State 17 0 17 12 Regional (County) 0 3 3 2 County 4 12 16 4 City 3 4 7 4 Regional (City/County) 0 3 3 2 Total 24 22 46 22

Findings from this phase are presented in two sections:

• “CRSCI Grantees” Focus Groups: This section summarizes the ideas generated by CRSCI grantees for how to adapt and enhance the BRACE model for new jurisdictions, in particular, local health departments.

• “Local Health Officials” Focus Groups: This section characterizes the operational resources and needs for climate and health adaptation planning among local health officials that have not received CRSCI funding, and identifies opportunities for leveraging local, state, and federal resources.

CRSCI grantees focus groups

The objective of CRSCI grantee focus groups was to solicit new ideas for how to address BRACE implementation challenges, as identified in phase 1 of the study, in a revised BRACE model focused on new jurisdictions, in particular, local health departments. CRSCI grantees were asked about key challenges and benefits of the BRACE model in their jurisdictions, as a

identified by CRSCI grantees in the interview transcripts in the first phase of the study, elaborated in Chapter 5.

One new theme that emerged was the challenge of the BRACE model’s sustainability. CRSCI grantee focus group participants noted that while the model was adaptive in philosophy, with an intent for an ongoing, iterative process,73 jurisdictions faced problems keeping activities going or repeating the cycle once stage 5 was reached. In the case of local- level CRSCI

grantees, several had to stop activities after funding grants from their state health departments ended, as there was no local funding to continue. For state-level CRSCI grantees, several reported they were unsure which elements of the BRACE model should be repeated and in what timeframes, and they reported an absence of CDC guidance on this. As a result, many CRSCI grantees are working to share the data and products of their CRSCI- funded activities with other local governmental agencies, with the hope that they can be continued with other funding.

This whole BRACE framework is a completed circle - once you get done with step five, you are supposed to go back to step one and reevaluate your impacts and how you are addressing them….We really only got to get through one cycle of this project before the funding ended. So there was almost no time at all to work on improving the quality of our activities…we haven’t really been able to take what we have learned and start over and re-apply it to a different area or improve upon what we have already done.

We have pivoted at this point to using what we have learned in the data we collected and supplying that information to other agencies that might have funding or the ability to continue this kind of work. So that is where we have been left at this point.

CRSCI grantee ideas for improvement

CRSCI grantee focus group participants were asked for their ideas for improving the BRACE model and/or CDC technical or funding assistance to support climate and health adaptation in new jurisdictions, in particular local health departments. The ideas below were suggested by two or more participants.

Table 3. Summary of CRSCI Grantee Ideas for Improving the BRACE Model 1. Downscale activities for LHDs in Stages 1 and 2

o Simplify climate and health profiles and vulnerability assessments, including merging in to one step and product

o Encourage qualitative assessment for detecting and attributing health impacts of climate hazards, and focus on “telling the story”

o Encourage LHDs to begin the BRACE planning process with an ‘a-priori’ climate or health priority for their jurisdiction

2. Outsource Stage 3 to CDC

3. Integrate adaptation into existing local planning processes vs. a stand-alone plan 4. Add new dimensions to the BRACE Model

o Mobilizing stakeholders

o Social determinants of health and health equity 5. Simplify evaluation activities

6. Provide guidance for how the BRACE model can be institutionalized 7. Collaborate at federal level with other CDC programs

8. Role of State in supporting LHDs

Improvement idea #1: Downscale activities for LHDs in stages 1 and 2

In the first phase of the study, CRSCI grantee identified a range of challenges to BRACE stages 1 and 2 (elaborated in Chapter 5), which included the intensity of time, expertise, and resources required for these two stages, the questionable utility of long-form climate and health profiles, the challenge of multiple sequential reports that require separate approval, and the variable capability and capacity in quantitative disease burden projections. To respond to these challenges, CRSCI grantee focus group participants recommended that CDC downscale the activities in stages 1 and 2 for LHDs. Their most common suggestions on how this downscaling could be achieved are:

• Simplify climate and health profiles and vulnerability assessments, including merging in to one step and product: CRSCI grantee focus group participants expressed that local health departments should not be expected to implement the same type of climate and health profile and vulnerability assessment de novo, as state-level CRSCI grantees were required to do. Instead, localities should be encouraged to build off of the existing

information provided in the national climate assessment or developed by states (such as county-level climate and health profiles or social vulnerability indices by census tracts) and even merge the hazard risk assessment and vulnerability assessment in to one step and final product. Participants also recommended that the product of these two activities be in shorter and more user-friendly formats for stakeholders and the public, such as interactive portals or web-based content. One participant noted that web-based materials were “much more accessible than reports”.

In our state, most of our local health jurisdictions could not do their own profile report. They just don't have that capacity, but they can take work that we have done- if we do it appropriately with them- and take it down to the local level. We are continuing to provide some technical assistance to the local health department, even without funding them,… including to conduct their own vulnerability assessment at a much smaller scale, more simplified for them. The vulnerability assessment that we did for the counties are still not out and

approved- it's almost a two year approval process.

To achieve this simplification of the climate and health profile and the vulnerability assessment, participants stated that CDC should help provide local health departments with tools and templates.

(I recommend) finding tools that can enable LHDs to really assess what these vulnerabilities are. Easy, user-friendly tools. In the urban planning role, the other role that I occupy, there is this sea-level rise viewer that anybody can use to identify whether their community is going to be under water in the next 15, 20, or 25 years. Something as crude as that could work.

• Encourage qualitative assessment for detecting and attributing health impacts of climate hazards, and focus on “telling the story”: CRSCI grantee focus group participants stated strongly that the BRACE model for stage two was “overly

academic” and too rigorous, and would be even more problematic for LHDs that are more resource-constrained. Instead, CDC should encourage the use of qualitative assessments of climate health impacts, which they considered more beneficial for

identifying priority health impacts, because it avoids the high burden of time and expertise, as well as validity concerns, that CRSCI grantees associated with the disease burden projections implemented under CRSCI.

For us the CDC document on projecting disease burden was quite technical and we ended up relying on external experts to help us with the map component to do the disease projection because we didn't have in-

house experience with that. For local jurisdictions…that could be a pretty heavy lift. One recommendation is that you do a qualitative assessment as opposed to a quantitative.

I feel like a weakness of this projection's framework is that it discounts qualitative projections. It is very focused on quantitative projections. I think that in a lot of cases, a qualitative assessment that draws on good climate science and expert opinion is actually going to get you just as far as spending a time coming up with a number that may or may not be any less precise than what you could have written in a sentence.

Moreover, several participants argued that the emphasis in this stage should be on how local health officials can tell the story of the how climate impacts health in compelling ways to the public, policy-makers, and other key stakeholders. One participant observed: “Being able to translate those messages about HOW the climate is changing in to health impact is probably of more value than being able to put a specific number on (it).”

I've often thought about this as what we have to do in some cases in order to prove that we need to take action, but often times the results of these studies projecting the disease burden are very underwhelming and actually aren't the most convincing. In fact there may be other ways in stage 1 where assessing what the climate projections are for the region, what the associated health risk with those changes is, and who is most vulnerable, that is sufficient to begin talking. Giving local examples, that is really key too. So I think stage 1 and 2 can be collapsed together. It's not about projecting or forecasting, it is about communicating and understanding the climate and health risks and

• Encourage LHDs to begin the BRACE planning process with an ‘a-priori’ climate or health priority for their jurisdiction: CRSCI grantee focus group participants

expressed the BRACE model should allow local health officials to start the BRACE planning process with a pre-determined (or ‘a-priori) priority area, either a climate hazard or a health outcome. This would enable local health officials to bypass the lengthy task of examining the universe of climate hazards and health conditions, and to consider other important factors in their priority-setting, such as political will or reducing duplication with other programs. The local health officials could then analyze related climate drivers, exposure pathways, vulnerable populations, and priority interventions related to this singular priority. This approach is being piloted by one state-level CRSCI grantee with several LHDs through a funded grant process. Jurisdictions could then repeat this process with other climate hazards over time, which could be encouraged.

If we are looking to provide guidance to local health, I think it would be useful to allow them, a priori, to identify what climate impact or disease burden is of concern to them. Maybe that is an non-scientific way, a more focus group or subject matter expert-based, but using it as starting pointand evaluating what the potential interventions to address that issue…then guiding them in to what they are going to do and what they will measure.

In fact, multiple CRSCI grantee focus group participants expressed that in their experiences, engaging LHDs in climate and health adaptation planning, they were far more successful when they started the conversation with questions about local priorities, rather than starting with a “big data” approach or with the BRACE climate and health profile.

We have…reversed the way BRACE works. There is some advantage that we have found to not starting off with the, ‘Let's take a big, 'epi' approach to big 'epi’ kinds of problems, do the disease projections for the things that we can

and go to communities with those,’ but instead let's start backwards. Start with the community questions about what health concerns are of greatest concern to them and then work backwards to say, ‘Okay, is an adaptation to that going to be influenced by or going to influence a climate adaptation program. When we work with local health departments, we bring a miniature climate and health profile and present to them on that, on what we see in terms of the data, but then we also just ask them if that is missing their perspective and their knowledge and expertise at the local level. ….If we just come in with this big data, we often get push back.

Improvement idea #2: Outsource stage 3 to CDC

In the first phase of the study, CRSCI grantees found stage 3 challenging; it could not be completed by any grantee alone, and the evidence-base itself was limited in rigor and breadth of climate hazards and health conditions. CRSCI grantee focus group participants strongly

recommended that local health officials should not be required to conduct a literature review, because they do not have the time or resources and because the effort would be redundant across regions. Instead, CDC could assume responsibility for producing and updating comprehensive literature reviews by major climate hazard or health area. This information could be made available with other resources in a central, web-based repository, and, if possible, through a searchable database. Localities could work with CDC to obtain relevant literature, and also network with other jurisdictions in their state or region to learn about contemporary models and best practices that are happening in real-time.

I do not think that it makes sense for each grantee to be doing a review of interventions, when that could be done by CDC and just have one centralized document that can be added on to as we see things that come up. It just seems like a wasted effort.

CDC has done this for other causes, like in chronic disease or the 6|18 initiative. They have come up with high priority things that have a decent evidence base and can be done. They have pulled out all of the other things in one central place. As public health

Improvement idea #3: Integrate climate and health into existing local planning processes vs. a stand-alone plan

CRSCI grantees in the first phase of the study questioned the utility of long-form vertical climate and health adaptation plans, many of which faced lengthy and sometimes politically- charged approval processes and became outdated with the fast-changing realities on the ground, and which, they reported, did not sufficiently engage non-health actors that were critical to their implementation. To address these challenges, focus participants recommended that local health officials should be encouraged to integrate climate and health considerations and activities in to existing local planning processes, rather than in a stand-alone plan. Examples for integration included inserting climate and health considerations into plans for community health assessment plans, hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness, and hospital assessment.

I think that there should be that kind of flexibility within any framework to fit our plans in to whatever is going to make the most sense for our jurisdiction so that it does not just get put up on a shelf somewhere but that it is aligned with a bigger effort or makes sense. One state-level CRSCI grantee already requires their local health officials to map all existing plans that they have produced or participated in, including state-level plans, in order to examine opportunities for integration of climate and health adaptation activities. This is intended to help local health officials understand how to align their climate and health priorities and activities with existing efforts. If local health officials strongly wish to pursue a stand-alone climate and health adaptation plan, participants recommend that only high level priorities be established for a five year time horizon. Short-term implementation strategies should be

developed for 1 year or less, to enable more experimentation, quality improvement, and adaptive management.

In particular, participants stressed the importance of integrating climate and health adaptation considerations in to non-health plans and programs. One participant gave the

example of county health departments in his jurisdiction that attempted to address extreme heat by planting trees; however the agency with the mandate to plant trees was urban planning, not public health. By forging a partnership, the health department was able to come up with a very promising adaptation.

I (question) the value of having a climate and health adaptation plan that is not connected to something outside of the health department, to other people who can actually

implement the adaptations. Remember, rules and adaptations are not meant to be from health. They are going to be from elsewhere. The bulk of it is going to be how we design our cities, how we provide services, what type of physical environments we have, how we change and protect it…..An intervention like housing may contribute more to improving health than any actual health care intervention.

Another participant noted that this work is especially important to leverage funding in resource- constrained environments.

One component that everyone has talked about but is not part of BRACE - I guess it's an assumed part of it - is building up partnerships, with not only your community partners, your health partners but other agencies that are non-public health agencies that are doing adaptation. I think that sort of comprehensive, integrated stakeholder approach is the way