NORC Final Report: Healthy People User Study. Healthy People 2020

The survey provided respondents with an opportunity to submit information to help in the development of Healthy People 2020. Healthy People 2010 users were asked their opinions on the number of focus areas that they would like to see in Healthy People 2020. Overall, 47 percent of Healthy People 2010 users felt that fewer focus areas should be included, 32 percent felt that there should be no change in the number of focus areas and only 2 percent felt that there should be more focus areas as compared to Healthy People 2010. Exhibit 23 illustrates Healthy People 2010 users’ views on the number of focus areas that should be included in Healthy People 2020, as compared to Healthy People 2010. There was no significant difference across respondent type regarding whether or not the number of focus areas should be changed.

Exhibit 23: Opinion on Number of Focus Areas to include in Healthy People 2020

Exhibit 23 is a bar chart showing the percent of HP Coordinators, Chronic Disease Directors, MTAHB, Tribal Health Organizations, and Local Health Organizations that think Healthy People 2020 should have fewer, more, or a similar number of focus areas (among Healthy People users).

Users were then asked about the organization of Healthy People 2020. Sixty-nine percent indicated that a reorganization of Healthy People would be useful for the next iteration. When asked which format for organizing objectives would be most useful 37 percent of Healthy People 2010 users felt it would be most useful to reorganize by risks/determinants, 30 percent felt it would be most useful to reorganize by disease area and 12 percent felt it would be most useful to reorganize by life stages. Tribal health organizations appear to differ in their opinion of which type of reorganization of Healthy People would be most useful. The majority of HP Coordinators, Chronic Disease Directors, MTAHB and local health organizations indicated it would be most useful to reorganize by risks/determinants while the majority of tribal health organizations felt that it would be most helpful to reorganize by disease area. As was true overall, each respondent type indicated that life stages would be the least popular way of organizing Healthy People. These results are shown in Exhibit 24.

Exhibit 24: Format for Reorganization

Exhibit 24 is a bar chart showing the percent of HP Coordinators, Chronic Disease Directors, MTAHB, Tribal Health Organizations, and Local Health Organizations that think Healthy People 2020 should be reorganized around disease areas, risks/determinants, or life stages (among Healthy People 2010 users).

Both users and non-users of Healthy People 2010 were asked about their organization/agency’s anticipated use of Healthy People 2020 (Exhibit 25). Overall, Healthy People 2010 users reported that they are most likely to use Healthy People 2020 as a framework for planning, goal-setting or decision making (79 percent) and for guiding organizational priorities (74 percent). Healthy People 2010 users report that they are least likely to use Healthy People 2020 as a guide to set spending priorities within their organization/agency (42 percent). Anticipated use of Healthy People 2020 among non-users of Healthy People 2010 ranged from 13 percent (guide to set spending priorities) to 35 percent (mechanism for building community partnerships).

When examining anticipated uses of Healthy People 2020 by respondent type, some differences did exist among users of Healthy People 2010: tribal health organizations and MTAHB were more likely than others to anticipate using Healthy People 2020 to guide priorities for their organization/agency; MTAHB were also more likely than the other groups to anticipate using Healthy People 2020 as a mechanism for building community partnerships; tribal health organizations were more likely than any other to anticipate using Healthy People 2020 as a guide to set spending priorities in their organizations; and tribal health organizations were significantly less likely than all other groups to anticipate using Healthy People 2020 as a framework for planning, goal setting or decision making.

When looking at anticipated use by region and by organization/agency size, few differences existed. Healthy People 2010 users in the northeast were more likely than users in other regions to anticipate using Healthy People 2020 to guide organizational priorities or as a guide to set spending priorities, and Healthy People 2010 users in the west were substantially less likely to anticipate using Healthy People 2020 as a mechanism for building community partnerships. Healthy People 2010 users in large organizations/agencies were less likely than those in mid size or small organizations/agencies to anticipate using Healthy People 2020 as a guide to set spending priorities.

Both users and non-users were asked to share additional comments about ways HHS could improve the next iteration of Healthy People. Users of Healthy People 2010 suggested making more technical assistance resources available, and making the web site more user-friendly. Non-users recommended that HHS focus on local applicability and implementation issues.

View full report

Download

"report.pdf" (pdf, 382.37Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®